Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/tenspeechesofgal01grow 


TEN  SPEECHES 


A 


OF 


HON  GALUSHA  A.  GROW, 


OF  PENNSYLVANIA, 


MADE 


HOITSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 


FIFTY-FIFTH  CONGRESS, 


1.  Protective  Duties  not  necessarily  an  Enhancement  of  Price. 

2.  Civil  Service  for  Government  Employees. 

3.  Free  Homes  for  Pioneer  Settlers. 

4.  Plighted  Faith  of  the  Government  in  Payment  of  its  Debts. 
.5.  Annexation  of  Hawaiian  Islands. 

6.  Free  Coinage  of  Silver. 

7.  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the  State  of  the  Union. 

5.  Expansion  of  Territories.  (January  27.) 

9.  Eulogy  on  Jnstin  S.  Morrill. 

lO.  Spanish  Treaty. 


NVjASI-IIjSTGPTOLSr. 

1899. 


JO  ? 

r 


Protective  Duties  on  Imported  Articles  Do  Not  Necessarily 
Enhance  the  Price  of  Such  Articles  to  the  Consumer. 


REMARKS 

OP 

HON.  GALUSHA  A.  GROW, 

OF  PENNSYLVANIA, 

In  the  House  of  Representatives, 

Thursday , March  25,  1S97. 

The  House  having  under  consideration  H.  R.  397,  to  provide  revenue  for 
the  Government— 

Mr.  GROW  said: 

Mr.  Chairman:  There  are  two  methods  of  raising  revenue  for 
the  Government;  one  by  direct  taxation,  the  other  by  duties  on 
foreign  imports.  A direct  tax  under  the  existing  provisions  of 
the  Constitution  must  be  apportioned  to  the  States  according  to 
their  representation.  Massachusetts  and  Indiana  have  the  same 
number  of  Representatives  iu  this  House,  while  they  differ  greatly 
in  wealth.  An  attempt  to  raise  revenue  by  direct  taxation  with- 
out a change  in  the  Constitution  would  make  the  people  of 
Indiana  pay  the  same  amount  as  the  people  of  Massachusetts. 
The  mere  statement  of  this  proposition  is  enough  to  show  the 
injustice  of  a system  of  direct  taxation  without  a change  in  the 
Constitution.  Until  the  Constitution  is  changed,  therefore,  there 
is  no  use  of  talking  about  direct  taxes  for  raising  revenue  for  the 
Government. 

Duties  on  foreign  imports  were  resorted  to  by  the  First  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States  under  the  present  Constitution  as  the 
source  for  raising  revenue  for  the  support  of  the  Government  in 
time  of  peace.  And  the  Constitution  prohibits  any  State  from 
collecting  duties  on  foreign  imports.  The  Government  of  the 
Union  alone  can  do  that.  The  States,  with  this  exception,  can 
have  such  taxation  as  they  please.  Why  should  Congress  abandon 
the  source  of  revenue  confided  to  it  expressly  by  the  Constitution 
and  invade  those  sources  of  revenue  left  to  the  States?  For  a 
hundred  years,  beginning  with  the  First  Congress  after  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Constitution  under  which  we  live,  Congress  has  im- 
posed duties  on  foreign  imports  in  order  to  raise  the  revenue 
necessary  for  the  support  of  the  Government  in  time  of  peace.  In 
this  unbroken  practice  of  more  than  a century  Congress  never, 
until  it. passed  what  is  called  the  Wilson  bill,  undertook  to  invade 
the  source  of  taxation  which  belongs  properly  to  the  States. 

The  Congress  which  passed  the  Wilson  bill  abandoned  what 
had  been  the  unbroken  practice  and  thought  it  wiser  to  collect 
only  a part  of  the  revenues  for  the  Government  from  duties  on  im- 
ports and  to  seek  some  other  source  for  the  balance.  But,  as  it 
proved,  they  were  as  unwise  in  the  selection  of  the  new  source 
from  which  to  collect  revenue  as  in  abandoning  the  practice  of  our 
fathers  on  this  subject.  The  Supreme  Court  decided  that  the  in- 
come tax  resorted  to  in  this  case  for  raising  part  of  the  necessary 
revenue  was  unconstitutional.  And  since  that  time  the  advocates 
of  the  W ilson  bill,  following  the  practice  of  some  lawyers  on  1 os- 
3510  3 


4 


ing  their  cases  in  court,  condemn  the  judge  and  the  jury  that  de- 
cides against  them,  and  still  insist  that  their  construction  of  the 
Constitution  and  law  is  better  than  that  of  the  court. 

Whether  it  would  be  wise  or  unwise  to  attempt  to  change  the 
Constitution  so  that  direct  taxes  might  be  levied  without  the 
inequality  that  would  result  from  an  apportionment,  as  now  re- 
quired, I will  not  stop  to  consider  at  this  time.  The  bill  before 
us  follows  in  theory  and  details  the  practice  of  our  fathers,  uni- 
form and  unbroken,  with  this  one  exception,  of  raising  the  nec- 
essary revenue  from  duties  on  foreign  imports  for  the  support  of 
the  Government  in  time  of  peace.  With  an  annual  importation 
of  $700,000,000  to  $850,000,000  in  valuation  of  products  of  foreign 
labor,  it  would  be  a poor  statesmanship  that  could  not  so  adjust 
duties  as  to  raise  at  least  $200,000,000  of  revenue  therefrom. 

What  has  been  the  practical  operation  of  the  tariff  law  now  in 
force?  Take  the  years  1892  and  1893,  under  the  McKinley  tariff, 
and  compare  them  with  the  years  1895  and  1896,  under  the  Wilson 
tariff.  These  years  are  fair  ones  for  comparison.  The  year’  1894 
it  is  not  fair  to  compare  with  anything  before  or  after  it,  for  it 
was  a year  of  transition,  when  Congress  was  employed  most  of  the 
year  in  settling  upon  what  was  a proper  tariff  policy  for  the  Gov- 
ernment. But  take  the  years  I have  mentioned  and  compare  the 
operation  of  these  two  tariffs  for  those  years.  That  is  a test,  and 
a practical  one.  All  of  the  theories  and  declamation  that  we  hear 
about  robbing  the  American  people  by  collecting  necessary  reve- 
nue is  of  no  avail  in  testing  practical  legislation. 

The  people  of  the  country  are  ready  to  pay  the  revenues  neces- 
sary for  the  support  of  the  Government,  and  no  one  has  pointed 
out  that  the  expenditures  of  the  last  Congress  or  the  Congress 
before  that,  were  other  than  wise  and  proper  expenditures  in  all 
their  great  and  leading  items  for  the  support  of  the  Government. 
No  matter  what  it  costs,  this  great  country,  reaching  from  ocean 
to  ocean,  and  with  the  longest  and  the  greatest  navigable  rivers  of 
the  world,  with  its  chain  of  inland  seas,  on  the  bosom  of  which  floats 
a tonnage  in  commerce  greater  than  the  foreign  commerce  of  the 
nation,  will  require  from  year  to  year  a greater  expenditure  of 
money.  The  people  are  ready  to  pay  the  necessary  expenses  for 
the  development  of  this  great  country  in  its  ever-increasing  com- 
merce at  home  and  with  all  the  world. 

Government  expenses,  then,  will  not  and  can  not  be  materially 
reduced  now  or  in  the  future.  It  becomes  necessary,  then,  to  raise 
sufficient  revenue  for  the  expenditures  of  the  Government  with- 
out borrowing.  The  present  tariff  fails  to  do  that  because  of  the 
unwise  adjustment  of  its  duties  even  for  purposes  of  revenue,  as 
the  following  tabulation  of  a few  articles  of  importation  clearly 
shows: 


Amount. 

Less  duty — 

Tin  plate  in  1895  greater  than  18912 

Stone,  china,  and  glass  ware  in  1896  greater  than 
1893  

$5,121,560 

1, 162, 193 
5, 721, 055 
191,950 

27,405,161 

$1,464,610 

1,841,499 
1,211.173 
558, 848 

21,477,389 

Fruits  and  nuts  in  1896  greater  than  1893. 

Distilled  spirits  in  1896  greater  than  1893. 

Wool,  and  manufactures  of,  in  1896  greater  than 
1893 

Five  articles  in  1896 

39,901,922 

26,553,519 

3610 


5 


With  an  importation  of  these  five  articles  of  $39,901,922  greater 
in  valuation  in  1896  than  in  1893,  the  duties  collected  were 
$26,553,519  less.  There  was  no  falling  off  in  imports  in  these  arti- 
cles, but  an  increase  in  the  quantity  of  importation  and  less  rev- 
enue collected.  Is  that  statesmanship,  when  the  Government  is 
running  in  debt  at  the  rate  of  $50,000,000  a year,  and  has  borrowed 
already  $262,000,000  to  pay  its  deficit  of  four  years  of  administra- 
tion? Of  these  five  articles,  $39,901,922  more  in  valuation  was 
imported  under  the  tariff  in  1896  than  was  imported  in  1893  under 
the  McKinley  bill,  and  $26,553,519  less  revenue  was  collected. 
This  is  the  operation  of  the  tariff  that  we  are  asked  to  leave  alone 
until  it  shall  collect  revenue  enough  to  pay  the  expenses  of  the 
Government. 

The  total  dutiable  imports  in  1892  and  1893,  compared  with  1895 
and  1896,  show  a difference  of  only  $10,000,000  iir  round  numbers. 
The  valuation  of  dutiable  imports  may  be  called  the  same  for 
these  two  years,  and  yet  $68,353,224  less  revenue  was  collected 
under  the  Wilson  bill  than  under  the  McKinley  bill. 

Much  is  said  about  duties  increasing  prices.  I call  the  attention 
of  the  committee  to  the  actual  facts  in  business.  Steel  rails  in 
this  country  in  1881  sold  for  $61.13  per  ton.  In  Great  Britain  the 
same  articles  sold  for  $30.41  per  ton.  In  1891  they  sold  in  this 
country  for  S29.92.  In  Great  Britain  the  price  was  $21.34.  The 
price  of  steel  rails  was  reduced  in  those  ten  years  from  $61.13  to 
$29.92.  being  a fall  of  $39.21  per  ton  in  price  in  this  country,  while 
in  Great  Britain  they  fell  $9.07  a ton,  being  reduced  in  this  coun- 
try three  times  as  much  as  in  Great  .Britain  for  the  same  time. 
While  the  duty  was  reduced  $11  a ton,  the  market  price  fell  $31.21 
a ton.  In  1893  steel  rails  sold  in  this  country  for  $24.29,  about  a 
fair  market  price,  and  they  sold  in  England  for  $18.55.  the  differ- 
ence being  just  about  the  difference  in  the  labor  cost  between  the 
two  countries.  The  duty  was  reduced  $3.56  a ton  and  market 
price  $6.92  a ton. 

No  matter  how  a tariff  may  be  arranged,  unless  the  duty  on  a 
particular  article  is  high  enough  to  equal  the  difference  in  the 
labor  cost  in  this  country  and  other  countries  the  laborer  in  this 
country  will  be  the  sufferer.  Strike  from  the  tariff  all  its  protect- 
ive features,  and  the  labor  of  this  country  must  then  stand  un- 
aided and  alone  in  its  competition  with  that  labor  of  the  world, 
where  homeless  poverty  is  the  sole  heritage  of  the  sons  of  toil. 
Under  free  trade  the  wages  of  labor  everywhere  will  be  the  lowest 
paid  anywhere.  The  only  way  to  protect  the  wages  of  the  Amer- 
ican laborer  is  by  protective  duties  on  articles  that  come  in  com- 
petition with  his  labor. 

But  we  are  told  that  low  duties  will  give  cheap  articles  to  the 
American  people.  Cheapness  to  the  consumer  in  articles  of  con- 
sumption, if  made  by  reducing  the  wages  of  the  laborer  who  pro- 
duces them  to  the  rate  paid  his  competitors  in  other  lands,  where 
penury  sits  at  their  fireside  and  sorrowing  want  surrounds  their 
deathbed,  is  not  a desirable  object.  Shall  cheapness  to  the  con- 
sumer in  articles  of  consumption  be  weighed  in  the  scale  against 
the  comfort  of  the  home  and  the  happiness  of  the  fireside  of  the 
laborer  who  produces  them?  [Applause  on  the  Republican  side.] 

[Here  the  hammer  fell.] 

3510 


6 


March  27,  1S97. 

Mr.  GROW.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  gentleman  from  Tennessee 
opened  his  remarks  by  stating  what  all  the  advocates  of  free 
trade  have  used  in  the  politics  of  this  country  for  the  last  forty 
years  in  the  shape  of  what  they  call  an  argument,  that  a duty 
on  an  article  is  necessarily  paid  by  the  consumer,  and  that  if  it 
does  not  enhance  the  price  of  the  article  to  the  consumer,  it  can 
not  be  any  advantage  to  the  producer  or  manufacturer.  Like  all 
Democrats,  in  the  discussion  of  the  imposition  of  duties  on  foreign 
imports  they  take  pleasure  and  special  pains  to  call  the  imposition 
of  duties  on  articles  a tax  on  such  articles. 

I desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  actual  facts 
in  business  bearing  upon  this  question  without  any  reference  to 
the  doctrines  of  free  trade  or  protection.  Take  as  an  illustration 
the  last  industry  which  has  been  developed  to  a large  extent  in 
this  country  by  reason  of  the  legislation  of  the  Republican  party 
in  the  tariff  of  1890 — the  manufacture  of  tin  plate.  Before  ls90 
none  was  made  here  for  market.  In  1892  was  the  beginning  of 
that  enterprise,  and  that  was  the  first  year  that  tin  plate  of  do- 
mestic manufacture  was  placed  in  our  market.  Previous  to  1S92 
the  duty  was  1 cent  per  pound.  Under  the  tariff  in  1892  the  duty 
was  made  2.2  cents  per  pound.  That  added  §1.29  on  a box  of  108 
pounds  over  the  duty  existing  before  1891.  When  the  duty  was 
1 cent  a pound,  in  1890,  tin  plate  sold  wholesale  in  NewT  York 
at  §4.55  per  box  of  108  pounds.  After  the  additional  duty  of 
§1.29  per  box  had  been  imposed,  it  sold  in  1892  for  §5.20,  which 
is  65  to  70  cents  additional,  and  yet  the  duty  was  §1.29  additional. 
Who  paid  the  difference  between  70  cents  and  §1.29  if  the  theory 
of  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  is  correct?  The  duty  was  increased 
§1.29  a box,  and  yet  it  did  not  increase  the  market  price  over  70 
cents  a box. 

In  1893  we  collected  on  tin  plate  $13,500,000  of  revenue  with  a 
duty  of  2'.2  cents  per  pound.  The  selling  price  per  box  was  $5.37. 
That  same  kind  of  box  of  tin,  I.  C.,  14  by  20,  the  standard  size, 
and  weighing  108  pounds,  sold  in  1882,  under  a duty  of  1.1  cents 
a pound,  for  §5.20  per  box. 

Mr.  RICHARDSON.  Let  me  ask  the  gentleman  this  question: 
If  it  is  not  true  that  when  the  McKinley  bill  was  passed  putting 
a tax  of  2 cents 

Mr.  GROW.  Two  and  two-tenths  cents. 

Mr.  RICHARDSON.  Two  and  two-tenths  cents  per  pound 
upon  tin — if  it  is  not  true  that  within  less  than  thirty  days  every 
merchant  and  every  store  in  the  United  States  which  exposed  iin 
for  sale  did  not  mark  up  the  price  to  correspond  to  the  increase  in 
the  duty? 

Mr.  GROW.  Why.  I have  just  said  that  it  went  up  70  cents  a 
box  under  an  increase  of  duty  of  $1.29  a box.  Now,  somebody 
had  to  pay  the  difference. 

The  increase  was  but  70  cents,  and  the  increase  in  duty  was 
§1.29.  According  to  your  argument,  the  price  should  have  in- 
creased the  whole  amount  of  additional  duty.  In  1892,  with  the 
duty  2.2  cents  a pound,  there  was  collected  on  an  importation  of 
401,030,785  pounds  $8,801,358  in  revenue,  while  in  1882,  with  a 
duty  of  1.1  cents  a pound,  there  was  collected  on  an  importation 
of  430,746,895  pounds  $4,837.216 — 27, 000, 000  pounds  more  imported 
in  1882  than  in  1892  and  $4,000,000  less  revenue,  and  the  wholesale 
8510 


7 


market  price  for  tlie  same  kind  of  a bos  of  tin  plate  was  $5.20  in 
1SS2  and  $5.30  in  1892.  I will  print  with  my  remarks  the  entire 
table  from  which  1 am  now  reading,  and  which  shows  that  the 
wholesale  market  price  in  New  York  of  tin  plate  from  18S2  to  1895 
only  varied  from  7 cents  to  8S  cents  per  bos  of  the  same  kind  and 
weight,  while  the  duty  on  the  bos  was  from  §1.08  to  $2.37  during 
these  fourteen  years. 

Tin  plate. 


Year. 

Imported. 

Home  pro- 
duction. 

Rate 

of 

duty. 

Duty  col- 
lected. 

Average 
price  per 
box,  108, 
I.  C., 

14  by  20. 

Average 
price 
steel  bil- 
lets 

per  ton. 

1882  

Pounds. 

430, 746,  S95 
674, 664.458 
1,057,711,501 
403.030.7S5 
613.679,999 
436,780,713 
534, 514, 907 
266,943,277 

Pounds. 

Cents. 

1.1 

1 

1 

2.2 

2.2 

2.2 

1.1 

1.1 

$4,837,216 
6,746,645 
10,577.115 
8,801,358 
13,500, 960 
9, 609. 175 
7,336,748 

$5.20 
4. 55 
5.20 
5.30 
5.37 
5.28 
4.22 
3.59 

1890  

1891 

$36. 32 
25.32 
23.63 
20.44 
16. 58 
18. 50 

1892 

13,646,719 

99.S19.202 

139.22S.467 

193,801,073 

307,228,621 

1893 

1891 

1895  

1896  

As  the  home  production  increases  of  a protected  article,  that  in 
the  end  we  can  fully  supply  our  market  with,  the  rule  everywhere 
in  trade  is  that  as  the  home  product  increases  the  importation  of 
the  like  foreign  article  diminishes,  and  the  price  falls  until  the 
home  market  is  supplied  by  the  home  product. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  time  of  the  gentleman  has  espired. 

Mr.  GROW.  I would  like  to  have  a few  minutes  longer,  the 
same  time  estended  to  the  gentleman  from  Tennessee. 

Mr.  McMILLAN.  I hope  that  will  be  done. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  the  absence  of  objection,  the  gentleman 
will  proceed. 

Mr.  GROW.  As  the  home  production  of  the  protected  article 
increases,  the  price  constantly  falls  by  home  competition,  and  the 
foreigner,  if  he  comes  into  the  market,  must  reduce  the  price  of 
his  commodity  and  pay  the  whole  or  part  of  the  duty  as  a license 
to  sell  in  our  market.  This  amount  is  not  charged  over  to  the 
consumer  in  a majority  of  cases.  It  depends  on  the  state  of  trade 
at  the  time  of  the  importation  whether  the  duty  is  lost  by  the 
foreign  producer  and  importer  and  the  merchant  who  handles  the 
commodity.  That  is  a question  depending  on  the  laws  of  trade, 
and  whether  the  consumer  pays  anything  additional  or  not  is  de- 
termined in  all  cases  by  the  price  current  of  the  article  at  the  time 
of  consumption. 

In  some  cases  he  pays  a part  of  the  duty,  but  it  is  a rare  case 
that  he  pays  it  all.  That  is  shown  in  this  table  from  1882  to  1896 
by  the  production  of  tinplate  in  this  country,  its  importation,  and 
its  price  per  box.  When  the  duty  on  tin  plate  in  1891  was  1 cent 
a pound,  the  box  sold  wholesale  for  §5.20  a box.  Precisely  the 
same  kind  of  article  sold  in  1894  for  $5.28  a box.  when  the  duty 
was  2.2  cents  a pound.  In  this  case  who  was  robbed?  For  that  is 
the  cry  of  free  traders  who  call  taxation  robbery  of  the  people. 

Who  was  robbed  in  this  transaction  of  tin  plate?  The  con- 
sumer did  not  pay  it,  for  the  price  of  the  box  of  tin  did  not  go  up 
the  amount  of  the  duty.  If  it  was  paid,  and  we  collected  the  duty 
3510 


8 


as  we  did,  who  paid  it?  The  producer  abroad  lost  a part  ot  it. 
The  transporter  lost  a part  of  it.  The  merchant  dealing  in  the 
article  lost  a part  of  it. 

Now,  the  rule  in  business  in  actual  trade  is  that,  as  the  home 
production  increases,  the  importation  of  the  like  foreign  article 
decreases  and  the  price  of  the  home  article  is  lessened  until  the 
home  market  is  supplied  by  the  home  article,  when  the  price  will 
be  less  than  at  other  time.  In  the  steel-rail  industry  we  made  in 
1887  2,000,000  tons  of  rails  in  this  country,  and  without  the  $28 
per  ton  duty  placed  upon  them  in  1868  that  could  not  have  been 
done.  Who  will  say  that  it  would  have  been  better  for  this  coun- 
try to  have  bought  20,000,000  tons  of  steel  rails  from  foreign 
nations,  I care  not  at  what  price,  than  to  have  made  them  here, 
as  has  been  done  in  the  last  sixteen  years?  The  advantage  of  that 
industry  has  accrued  to  this  country,  instead  of  foreign  countries, 
and  steel  rails  are  selling  here  to-day  for  less  price  than  anywhere 
else  in  the  world,  and  that  result  has  been  produced  by  the  pro- 
tective duty  that  brought  that  industry  into  existence  in  this 
country.  [Applause  on  the  Republican  side.] 

March  31,  1897. 

Mr.  GROW.  Mr.  Chairman,  not  desiring  to  interfere  with  the 
amendments  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  which  they 
had  prepared  and  wished  to  offer  to  the  bill,  I have  refrained 
heretofore  from  taking  up  any  of  the  time  of  the  committee.  I 
now  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  briefly  to  some 
facts  in  trade  which  show  the  effect  of  protective  tariffs  on  prices. 

A tariff  with  reasonable  protective  duties  is  best  for  raising  rev- 
enue until  the  protected  articles  are  produced  in  sufficient  quan- 
tity to  supply,  or  nearly  so,  the  home  market. 

The  operation  of  duties  since  the  beginning  of  the  Government, 
whether  protective,  prohibitory,  or  for  revenue  only,  will  show 
throughput  the  whole  experience  of  the  Government  under  tariffs 
one  thing  as  true:  That  is,  that  more  revenue  is  raised  on  the  im- 
portation of  the  articles  called  “protected  articles”  than  from  the 
same  articles  imported  under  a so-called  revenue  duty,  until  the 
articles  supply,  or  nearly  so,  the  home  market,  for  in  such  cases 
a larger  revenue  is  collected  on  a smaller  importation.  The  price 
of  articles  upon  which  duties  are  imposed  does  not  increase  or 
decrease  according  to  the  duties  imposed,  but  the  price  is  fixed 
by  the  law  of  trade  prevailing  at  the  time,  and  the  duties  only 
modify  the  price,  and  it  is  not  fixed  specifically  by  the  amount  of 
duty. 

While  the  pig-iron  industry  will  for  the  whole  period  of  its 
existence  show  this  fact,  1 will  take  three  years— 1880,  the  first 
year  after  the  resumption  of  specie  payments:  1892,  under  the  Mc- 
Kinley tariff,  and  1895.  under  the  present  law,  called  the  Wilson 
tariff. 


PIG  IRON. 


Home  pro- 
duction. 

Imports. 

Average 

price. 

Duty. 

Duty 

(less). 

Price 

(less). 

Tons. 
3,835, 191 
9,157,000 
9, 440,308 

Tons. 

700,864 

82,891 

53,232 

§28. 50 
15.75 
12.00 

$7.00 

6.72 

4.00 

§0.28 

2.72 

$12.75 

3.75 

3510 


9 


The  home  production  in  1880  was  3,836,000  tons,  and  the  imports 
701,000  tons;  average  price  for  the  year,  $28.50;  the  duty,  $7  per 
ton.  In  1892,  when  we  made  in  this  country  9,157,000  tons  and 
imported  83,000  tons,  the  market  price  was  $15.75  and  the  duty 
$6.72.  The  duty  was  28  cents  less,  but  the  price  was  $12.75  a ton 
less.  In  1895,  when  we  made  9,447,000  tons  and  imported  53,000 
tons,  the  duty  was  $4  and  the  price  was  $12  a ton,  a reduction  in 
duty  of  $2.72  and  in  price  $3.75.  The  same  thing  is  true  in  the 
steel-rail  industry,  as  shown  by  the  following  table: 

STEEL  BAILS. 


Year. 

Home  pro- 
duction. 

Foreign 

importa- 

tion. 

Market 

price. 

Rate  of 
duty. 

Duty 

(less). 

Price 

(less). 

Price 

(more). 

1879 

Gross  tons. 
610, 682 
852, 196 
996, 983 
2,101.904 
1,130,368 
1,150,000 

Gross  tons. 
22.372 
141,227 
2,745 
137,588 
932 
776 

$48.25 

67.50 

30.75 

37.08 

24.29 

22.00 

$28.00 

28.00 

17.00 

17.00 

13.44 

7.88 

1880 

$19.25 

1SS4 

$11.00 

$26.75 

1887  

6.33 

1893 

3.56 

5.56 

12.79 

2.29 

1895 

With  the  same  duty  in  1879  and  I860,  the  price  varied  $19.25. 
And  in  1 884,  with  $11  a ton  less  duty,  the  price  was  $26.75  less.  In 
1895,  when  we  supplied  the  home  market  with  an  importation  of 
only  776  tons,  and  with  a duty  of  $7.88  a ton,  the  market  price  of 
steel  rails  was  $22  to  $24  a ton,  and  they  are  to-day  selling  for  a 
less  price  than  anywhere  else. 

The  tin-plate  industry  shows  the  same  thing.  Previous  to  1891 
the  entire  consumption  was  imported:  and  the  duty  was  from  1 to 
1.1  cents  a pound,  and  the  price  of  a box  of  tin  plate,  wholesale,  in 
New  York  (I.  C.,  14  by  20,  108  pounds)  was  from  $4.50  to  $5.20. 
The  duty  after  1891  to  1894  was  2.2  cents  a pound;  and  in  1896  one- 
half  of  the  consumption  of  the  country  was  made  here,  and  the 
same  kind  of  a box  of  tin  plate  sold  for  $3.80  a box,  being  from  70 
to  75  cents  a box  less  than  in  the  years  from  1883  to  1891,  when  the 
entire  consumption  was  imported. 

TIN  PLATE. 


Year. 

Foreign  im- 
portation. 

Home  pro- 
duction. 

Rate  of 
duty. 

Price  per 
box  (108 
pounds). 

1890  

674.664,458 
403,0:30,785 
266, 943, 277 

1 cent 

2.2  cents  - 
1. 1 cents . 

$4.55 

5.30 

3.80 

1892  

13.646.719 

307,228,621 

1896 

In  concluding,  I wish  to  say  a word  to  the  gentleman  from 
Kansas  [Mr.  Simpson]  , who  was  very  complimentary  to  me  the 
other  day  in  his  remarks,  for  which  I thank  him,  and  I was  not 
offended  by  his  classing  me  with  those  who  are  striving  to  “ en- 
slave mankind.”  He  belongs  to  that  class  of  people  who  seem  to 
be  opposed  to  about  everything  that  is  and  are  not  much  in  favor 
of  anything  that  is  not.  [Laughter  and  applause  on  the  Repub- 
lican side.] 

[Here  the  hammer  fell.] 

3510 


G 


THE  CIVIL  SERVICE. 


SPEECH 


HOX.  GALUSHA  A.  GROW 


OH 


IN  THE 


HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 


JANUARY  S,  1898. 


WASHINGTON, 

I898. 


SPEECH 


OF 

HON.  GALUSHA  A.  GROW. 


The  House  being  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  and 
having  under  consideration  the  hill  (H.R.4751)  making  appropriations  foi  the 
legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  expenses  of  the  Government  for  the  fiscal 
year  ending  June  30,  1899,  and  for  other  purposes— 

Mr.  GROW  said: 

Mr.  Chairman:  I shall  not  trespass  upon  the  time  of  the  com- 
mittee with  any  discussion  as  to  the  mode  in  which  the  civil- 
service  law  has  been  administered  heretofore  by  any  Adminis- 
tration. The  manner  of  administration  of  a law  is,  however,  an 
essential  part  of  it. 

There  is  no  question  that  there  should  be  some  law  to  regulate, 
to  a certain  extent  at  least,  appointments  to  office  in  such  a way 
as  to  relieve  the  President  from  spending  so  much  of  his  time  in 
hearing  the  application  of  every  applicant  for  all  the  offices  that 
are  to  be  filled.  Either  the  lives  of  our  Presidents  must  be  assured 
by  a physically  iron  constitution  or  they  can  not  live  out  their 
full  official  terms,  if  they  must,  in  addition  to  other  duties,  be  en- 
gaged in  examining  all  the  cases  of  appointments. 

Whether  the  system  I shall  now  suggest  could  be  introduced 
without  a change  of  the  Constitution  maybe  a question;  but  I 
think  that  by  a law  of  Congress  approved  by  the  President  regu- 
lating the  mode  of  appointment  might  continue  in  practice  the 
same  as  it  would 

Mr.  DINGLEY.  Mr.  Chairman,  I rise  to  a question  of  order. 
We  desire  to  hear  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  on  this  sub- 
ject, and  there  is  so  much  confusion  that  we  can  not  do  so  unless 
we  are  near  him. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  point  of  order  made  by  the  gentleman 
from  Maine  is  well  taken.  The  committee  will  please  be  in  order. 

Mr.  GROW.  I was  saying,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  as  the  Consti- 
tution vests  the  appointing  power  in  the  President,  an  amendment 
of  the  Constitution  might  be  necessary  to  introduce  a change  in 
that  respect.  But  a law  of  Congress,  approved  by  the  President, 
might,  by  such  acquiescence  by  the  Executive,  take  the  place  of  a 
formal  amendment  to  the  Constitution. 

Without  discussing  at  length  any  proposed  change,  I simply 
wish  to  express  at  this  time  my  views  on  this  subject,  which  are 
not  merely  the  views  of  to-day.  I have  been  committed  to  them 
for  a third  of  a century.  Without  stoping  to  discuss  the  constitu- 
tional difficulty  which  might  be  in  the  way,  I would  have  a civil- 
service  regulation  taking  from  the  President  the  power  to  appoint 
any  officer  of  the  Government  save  the  judges  of  the  courts  of  the 
United  States  and  the  representatives  of  our  Government  in  for- 
eign countries.  These  appointments  should  be  left  to  the  Presi- 
dent for  this  reason:  The  judiciary  is  a coordinate  branch  of  the 
2881  3 


4 


Government,  and  the  power  of  appointment  could  not  well  be 
vested  in  any  inferior  tribunal. 

Mr.  PEARSON.  Would  the  gentleman  allow  the  President  to 
appoint  his  own  Cabinet? 

Mr.  GROW.  I will  come  to  that  question  in  a moment.  The 
appointment  of  all  foreign  officials  of  the  Government  should 
remain  with  the  President,  because  he  represents  our  nation  in 
its  intercourse  with  other  nations.  Those  two  classes  of  appoint- 
ments therefore  should  be  left  with  the  President.  The  members 
of  his  Cabinet  he  would  have,  of  course,  the  right  to  appoint,  for 
they  are  his  own  official  family,  and  it  is  nobody 's  business  whom 
he  may  choose  for  those  positions.  But  I would  vest  in  each 
officer  of  the  Cabinet  the  appointment  of  all  persons  engaged  in 
his  branch  of  the  service,  and  would  hold  him  responsible  for  the 
faithful  performance  of  public  dirty  in  his  Department.  Such 
appointments  as  are  by  law  to  be  confirmed  by  the  Senate  I would 
have,  as  now,  transmitted  to  it  by  the  President.  Thus  all  ap- 
pointments of  that  character  would  pass  through  his  hands. 
Under  the  prerogative  of  his  office  he  might  object  to  some  of 
them  if  he  chose. 

But  in  this  way  he  would  be  relieved  from  sitting  day  by  day 
for  the  determination  of  minor  appointments  when  the  most 
momentous  questions  between  this  nation  and  others,  and  ques- 
tions involving  perhaps  its  life,  might  be  at  stake.  He  would 
be  relieved  from  the  necessity  of  devoting  his  time  to  hearing 
every  applicant  or  the  Members  and  Senators  representing  such 
applicant.  At  present  the  member  of  Congress  representing 
the  applicant's  district  must  go  to  the  President  in  behalf  of  the 
applicant.  This  is  a duty  which  he  owes  to  his  constituents. 
Under  the  existing  system  the  President  in  his  executive  office 
must,  during  a period  when  the  life  of  the  nation  and  the  hopes  of 
mankind  might  hang  suspended  upon  the  battlefield,  listen  day  by 
day  to  these  applications. 

Let  me  illustrate  by  a single  case.  During  the  Presidency  of 
Mr.  Lincoln  I desired  the  appointment  of  a judge  in  one  of  the 
Territories.  The  President  made  a memorandum  of  the  matter. 
I went  to  call  upon  him  one  day,  not  to  call  his  attention  to  this 
matter,  but  as  soon  as  I entered  the  Executive  Chamber  he  said, 
“Mr.  Speaker.  I meant  to  appoint  your  friend  to  that  judgeship, 
but  a woman  came  in  here,  with  nine  small  children  and  one  at 
the  breast,  and  pleaded  the  bread  act  on  me.  and  breaded  me  out  of 
it.”  I said,  “Very  well,  Mr.  President.  If  there  is  anybody  need- 
ing consideration  and  cooperation  from  the  Government  it  is  the 
Union  men  in  the  insurrectionary  States.”  This  was  one  of  such 
cases.  The  family  had  been  driven  out  because  of  their  Union 
sentiments.  “ But,”  said  he,  “ I will  attend  to  the  matter;  let  me 
take  the  name  again.” 

He  went  to  his  hat  filled  with  papers  and  began  to  fumble  over 
them,  remarking,  “I  have  a queer  way  of  doing  things.”  “ Yes, 
Mr.  President,”  I replied,  “if  your  hat  should  blow  off  in  the 
street,  state  secrets  might  be  scattered.”  He  took  out  a paper,  on 
which  he  put  down  the  name.  “Now,”  said  he,  “I  will  attend  to 
the  matter  when  it  comes  around.”  As  I left  the  chamber  I 
queried  with  myself.  Why  should  a President  of  the  United  States 
in  such  an  hour  be  required  to  spend  his  time  and  strength  listen- 
ing to  applications  for  subordinate  positions  in  the  Government? 
The  law  should  require  an  applicant  to  present  his  case  to  the 
28S1 


5 


proper  Department  of  tlie  Government — the  Secretary  of  State, 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  or  whatever  Department  the  office 
he  is  applying  for  might  belong  to. 

Here"  was  a President,  charged  with  greater  responsibility  than 
ever  fell  to  the  lot  of  any  ruler  since  time  began,  required  to  spend 
his  time  and  strength  in  considering  official  appointments  all  the 
way  down  to  collectorships  and  little  post-offices.  This  greatest 
American  of  the  nineteenth  century,  who,  among  all  the  world’s 
civil  rulers  in  peace  or  war,  will  through  all  time  hold  no  inferior 
niche  in  the  pantheon  of  human  greatness,  was  thus  occupied. 
Why  impose  these  duties  upon  the  President,  when  such  duties 
are  constantly  multiplying  and  have  multiplied  from  a few  thou- 
sand appointments  to  hundreds  of  thousands? 

Strictly,  the  Constitution  would  have  to  be  changed  to  take  away 
from  him  his  prerogative  to  make  all  appointments;  but  a law  of 
Congress,  assented  to  by  his  signature,  would  be  the  same  in  prac- 
tical effect  as  a change  in  the  Constitution  in  that  regard  if  it  were 
acauiesced  in  by  the  Executive,  as  undoubtedly  it  would  be  in  this 
case. 

I am  opposed  to  any  life  tenure  in  the  civil  service  except  in  the 
case  of  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  and 
there  should  be  an  exception  in  their  case,  by  reason  of  the  fact  that 
the  Government  takes  their  life  services  for  the  good  of  the  coun- 
try, and  pays  them  a compensation  less  than  a common  lawyer 
receives  in  his  practice  at  the  bar  of  any  of  the  States  of  the  Union. 
They  spend  their  lifetime  in  the  consideration  of  great  questions 
affecting  society,  affecting  the  States  of  the  Union  and  the  rights 
of  the  people. 

I would  leave  them  on  the  retired  list  for  the  balance  of  their 
lives  after  they  have  given  their  life  services  to  the  consideration 
of  the  grave  questions  in  which  their  countrymen  are  so  vitally 
interested.  Their  case  should,  therefore,  be  a special  exception  in 
any  general  law.  But  all  appointments,  save  the  judiciary  and 
those  in  our  foreign  relations,  should  be  placed  upon  an  entirely 
different  plane.  Take  from  the  President  by  law  the  making  of 
these  appointments,  so  that  he  could  say  when  we  fill  his  ante- 
chambers with  our  constituents  who  are  applicants  for  appoint- 
ment that  the  law  does  not  permit  me  to  make  them:  you  must 
go  to  the  proper  Department  fixed  by  the  lawmaking  power  for  that 
purpose.  ” 

The  Constitution  requires  the  President  to  make  recommenda- 
tions as  to  the  state  of  public  affairs,  and  he  may  from  time  to  time 
recommend  to  Congress  such  matters  as  may  seem  to  be  of  im- 
portance in  his  judgment.  His  time  should  be  given  to  the  ma- 
turing of  great  questions  of  that  character,  for  the  consideration 
of  the  legislative  branch  of  the  Government,  and  in  connection 
with  our  relations  with  foreign  Governments.  This  being  the 
case,  why  should  his  time  be  taken  up  with  the  consideration  of 
the  appointments  in  the  various  Departments  of  the  Government, 
instead  of  being  given  to  the  consideration  of  those  great  ques- 
tions which  affect  the  interests,  the  welfare,  and  happiness  of  the 
whole  people? 

I have,  Mr.  Chairman,  given  hastily  the  outlines  of  my  views  of 
what  I believe  the  proper  system  of  civil  service  should  be  in  this 
country.  I know,  of  course,  that  without  the  acquiescence  of  the 
President  such  a system  can  not  prevail  unless  the  law  takes  the 
form  of  a constitutional  amendment.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  such 
2S81 


6 


a system  can  be  devised  as  will  meet  every  requirement  in  that 
regard.  It  is  necessary  that  something  of  the  kind  should  be  done, 
if  we  would  spare  the  life  of  our  Presidents. 

It  was  only  the  iron  constitution  and  great  physical  endurance 
of  Abraham  Lincoln  that  enabled  him  to  go  through  the  mighty 
struggle  of  five  years,  when  the  very  air  throughout  every  part  of 
the  country  was  vibrating  with  the  strains  of  martial  music  and 
mighty  armies  were  marching  and  countermarching  preparatory 
to  the  deadly  conflict  on  the  battlefield,  upon  which  hung  the  per- 
petuity of  the  Union  and  the  hopes  of  the  great  and  good  of  man- 
kind. that  was  to  determine  whether  the  free  institutions  be- 
queathed by  our  fathers  should  be  transmitted  unimpaired  to 
future  times.  For  if  this  Republic,  torn  by  faction  and  internal 
strife,  should  fall  rent  and  dismembered,  the  last  great  experiment 
of  free  elective  government  among  men  has  been  tried,  and  the 
oppressed  and  downtrodden  of  the  world  could  then  hug  their 
chains  as  the  only  legacy  they  could  bequeath  their  children. 

There  was  no  period  during  four  years  of  his  Administration 
that  the  shadow  of  war  was  not  hanging  darkly  over  the  land, 
and  when  the  very  life  of  the  nation  was  not  in  danger. 

Relieve  the  President  of  the  responsibility  in  the  making  of  ap- 
pointments other  than  those  indicated  and  allow  the  heads  of  the 
Departments  to  select  their  confidential  and  chief  clerks,  and  at 
the  same  time  abolish  the  various  classifications  of  salaries.  That 
is  one  of  the  mistakes  made  in  the  administration  of  this  law. 

As  long  as  there  is  a salary  list,  varying  from  $720  a year  to 
$1,600  or  $1,800,  whoever  administers  the  law  has  an  opportunity 
by  reclassifying  to  put  in  their  political  favorites,  by  putting  per- 
sonal friends  into  the  higher  salaried  places  and  reducing  others 
to  the  lower  grades.  In  the  mutation  of  politics,  in  the  changes 
in  the  political  hea*is  of  the  various  departments,  these  different 
salaries  offer  great  temptation  for  a maladministration  of  the 
law  and  injustice  to  faithful  and  competent  employees  for  the 
mere  purpose  of  rewarding  political  favorites.  I know  of  clerks 
in  the  Pension  Office  who  have  drawn  a salary  of  $1,000,  $1,400, 
and  $1,600  a year,  and  yet  have  remained  at  the  same  desk  and 
performed  precisely  the  same  kind  of  work  all  the  time.  From 
$1,600  they  were  changed  by  a change  of  Administration  to  $1,400, 
then  back  to  $1,600,  then  from  $1,600  to  $1,200 — just  by  a political 
change  in  the  Administration. 

There  should  be  but  two  classes  of  salaries  for  all  clerkships,  and 
then  make  the  law  imperative  that  no  clerk,  except  for  cause,  shall 
be  reclassified  in  salary  from  a higher  to  a lower  one. 

I have  thus  presented  briefly  my  views  on  this  question,  long 
entertained  and  confirmed  by  experience.  I would  not  have  the 
“spoils  system,”  as  it  is  called,  prevail,  so  that  every  Administra- 
tion that  comes  into  power  in  the  changing  politics  of  the  country 
might  use  these  high  places  as  “sugar  plums”  and  favors  for  a 
few  political  favorites  without  qualification  for  the  duties  of  the 
positions  sought. 

The  modification  of  the  system  as  I have  suggested  would  take 
away  that  feature.  The  great  evil  complained  of  at  the  time  of 
the  passage  of  the  civil-service  law  was  that  the  political  classes 
at  the  points  of  great  population  could  combine  for  the  nomina- 
tion of  some  person  for  President  whom  they  felt  assured  would 
give  them  the  offices  they  might  ask  for,  and  thus  they  could  by 
such  action  forestall  to  a great  degree  the  free  action  of  Presiden- 
2881 


7 


tial  conventions.  The  modification  I suggest  would  effectually 
remove  such  complaint,  for  no  one  could  possibly  know  who  the 
Cabinet  of  a President  would  be  before  election,  and  the  selection 
of  a candidate  for  President  would  therefore  rest  wholly  upon 
public  sentiment. 

There  should  be  no  regulation  such  that  a person  who  holds 
office  under  the  Government  can  not  maintain  his  manhood  with- 
out fear  of  losing  his  position.  Why  should  he,  from  the  time  he 
goes  into  office,  feel  that  he  is  bound  to  suppress  his  honest  con- 
victions or  lose  the  place  he  holds?  It  is  a degradation  and  a dis- 
honor to  write  over  the  office  doors  of  the  Government  of  this 
Union,  “ Who  enters  here  leaves  his  manhood  and  his  honest 
convictions  behind.”  The  officeholder  is  a citizen  of  the  United 
States  as  much  bound  to  have  political  convictions  as  any  other 
citizen  of  the  country.  He  is  a part  of  it. 

He  has  a right  to  contribute  his  money  where  he  pleases,  and  no 
official  of  the  Government  any  more  than  anyone  else  has  a right 
to  impose  a tax  on  him  for  any  purpose  without  his  consent.  The 
law  should  prevent  that,  for  it  is  the  same  as  the  highwayman’s 
command  to  stand  and  deliver.  I would  have  those  two  evils 
abolished  by  law.  The  law  should  prevent  the  taking  from  the 
salary  of  any  official  of  the  Government  under  duress  one  cent,  for 
that  is  the  effect  in  levying  contributions  upon  the  officeholders  of 
the  Government  without  their  free  and  voluntary  consent.  Pre- 
vent that,  prevent  reclassification  of  the  clerks  upon  a change  of 
Administration,  and  make  all  appointments  as  far  as  possible  by 
the  Secretaries  in  their  own  Departments,  and  you  will  have  done 
away  with  most  if  not  all  the  evils  that  are  complained  of  con- 
cerning the  office-holding  class  in  the  Government. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I am  obliged  to  the  gentleman  from  North  Car- 
olina [Mr.  Pearson]  and  to  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts 
[Mr.  Moody]  for  their  kindness  in  yielding  me  the  floor  for  these 
few  minutes,  and  to  the  House  for  its  courtesy. 
mi 


O 


FREE  HOMES  FOR  PIONEER  SETTLERS. 


SPEECH 


HON.  GALUSHA  A.  GROW, 

OF  PENNSYLVANIA, 

IN  THE 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 


ON 

FREE  HOMESTEADS, 


MARCH  10,  1898. 


WASHUSTG-TOISr, 

1898. 


SPEECH 


OF 

HON.  GALHSHA  A.  GROW. 


The  House  being  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  and 
haring  under  consideration  the  Senate  amendments  to  the  bill  (H.  R.  GS9G) 
making  appropriations  for  the  current  and  contingent  expenses  of  the  Indian 
Department,  etc. — 

Mr.  GROW  said: 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  objections  urged  against  the  passage  of 
this  amendment  would  have  been  equally  good  against  the  enact- 
ment of  the  original  free-homestead  law.  [Applause.]  W e heard 
all  these  objections  then  of  giving  away  the  lands  and  of  the  con- 
dition of  the  Treasury.  By  the  estimate  of  the  Commissioner  of 
the  Land  Office  in  1862.  the  Government  then  had  1,650,000,000 
acres  of  public  land.  Multiply  that  by  $1.25.  and  it  would  be  over 
two  thousand  millions  of  dollars.  It  is  now  claimed  that  the  Gov- 
ernment might  collect  thirty  or  thirty-five  million  dollars  that  it 
is  proposed  to  give  away.  If  that  is  a good  reason  why  we  should 
not  pass  this  amendment,  then  there  was  a much  better  reason 
why  the  original  homestead  act  should  not  have  passed.  By  the 
present  reasoning  it  took  out  of  the  Treasury  then  two  thousand 
millions  of  dollars. 

The  homestead  act  was  not  passed  as  an  act  of  charity.  It  was 
passed  as  an  act  of  simple  justice  and  of  right  to  the  pioneer  settler 
on  the  public  domain.  It  was  passed  so  that  the  pioneer  settler 
who  falls  leading  the  van  of  civilization  through  the  wilderness  and 
is  buried  in  the  dust  of  its  advancing  columns  should  not  be  com- 
pelled to  pay  to  the  Government  or  to  land  speculators  a part  of  his 
hard  earnings,  which  are  necessary  to  make  his  home  comforta- 
ble and  his  fireside  happy,  and  to  rear  his  children  educated, 
respectable  members  of  society.  The  pillars  of  the  Republic  rest 
upon  the  comfort  of  the  home  and  the  happiness  of  the  fireside  of 
its  laboring  people.  [Applause.] 

It  was  to  secure  that  that  the  original  free-homestead  law  was 
passed.  If  the  objection  to  the  passage  of  this  amendment  is  good 
to-day  by  reason  of  the  condition  of  the  Treasury,  it  would  have 
been  a doubly  good  reason  then,  and  the  men  who  sat  in  these  halls 
at  that  time  would  not  have  passed  the  original  free-homestead  act. 
It  was  at  a time  when  the  Government  needed  all  its  resources. 
A half  million  brave  men,  schooled  in  the  traditions  of  a heroic 
ancestry,  were  in  arms  on  the  battlefield  for  its  overthrow.  The 
House  passed  a bill  authorizing  a loan  of  $500,000,000,  and  the 
Senate  amended  it  by  pledging  the  proceeds  of  the  public  lands 
to  be  applied  in  payment  of  the  loan.  This  House  refused  to  con- 
cur and  it  was  left  out.  A few  months  after  the  homestead  bill 
became  a law.  If  these  gentlemen  who  object  to  this  amendment 
2 3121 


3 


had  been  there,  they  would  have  insisted  on  it  that  we  were  rob- 
bing the  Treasury  by  giving  away  these  lands. 

I ask  that  the  Clerk  will  read  for  me.  from  the  Congressional 
Globe,  second  session  Thirty-seventh  Congress,  an  extract  from  a 
speech  made  February  21,  lm:L  It  was  on  a motion  to  refer  the 
homestead  bill,  after  it  was  introduced  in  the  House  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Public  Lands  with  instructions  to  the  committee  to 
bring  in  a bill  providing  for  a soldier  bounty  .and  law  in  lien  of 
the  homestead. 

The  Clerk  read  as  follows: 

■While  we  provide  wish,  open  hard  ror  the  soldier  :n  the  tented  held.  let  is 
not  heap  tnmeeessary  burdens  vpcti  these  heroes  o £ the  garret,  the  workshop, 
art  the  wilderness  home  mev  have  home  7 : w eagles  m tritmph  from 
ocean  to  ocean  and  spanned  the  oontment  with  great  empires  of  free  States, 
built  on  the  mins  of  savage  life.  Such,  are  the  men  whom  the  homestead 
policy  vonld  save  from  me  grasp  of  speculation.  Bv  it  yon  would  secure  to 
them" ail  their  earnings,  with  whim  to  made  their  homes  comfortable-  bund 
the  schooEhonse  and  church,  and  thns  oonrrmnre  to  the  greatness  and  glory 
of  the  Beptiblic. 

'Applause.” 

3lr.  GROW.  Hr.  Chairman,  tie  ho  mestead  settler  t o-day  on  the 
public  lands  of  the  L nite<i  States  needs  the  same  things  that  we 
gave  him  them  This  amen  ament  comes  here  now  by  reason  of  the 
innovation  on  the  policy  of  the  free-homestead  law  which  had 
been  in  force  unbroken  for  a third  of  a century.  The  Adminis- 
tration sent  commissioners  to  make  a treaty  with  the  Indian,  traces 
ani  buy  their  lands  by  the  acre,  recognizing  in  them  a fee  simple 
in  the  wilderness  of  this  country,  and  thus  they  become  to-day 
the  land  speculator,  instead  of  the  old  land  speculator  under  the 
old  policy  of  the  Government,  when  it  sold  its  lands  at  a dollar 
and  a quarter  per  acre. 

Is  ow  the  Government  comes  in  as  agent  and  trustee  of  the  In- 
dian to  take  from  the  settler  from  -51  to  83.75  per  acre,  thus  per- 
forming the  part  the  land  speculator  'lid  un  ier  the  old  system. 
What  right  in  the  lands  had  the  Indian  to  convey  ? What  did  the 
Government  buy?  they  bought  nothing.  f:r  the  i u dw.~  had 
nothing  of  real  value  to  selL  The  Indians'  claim  to  these  lands 
is  that  they  had  wandered  over  them  with  shotgun  and  fishing 
rod  or  bow  anl  arrow.  AH  the  Government  got  was  the  Indians' 
strolling  occupancy,  bow  you  ask  that  the  settler  who  goes 
there  to  make  a home  and  rear  a family  should  pay  to  the  Gov- 
ernment from  81  to  53.75  per  acre  in  : rider  that  the  Government 
may  pay  it  to  the  Indians. 

The  Government  made  a bargain  it  had  no  business  to  make  by 
which  the  people's  money  was  squandered.  It  disregarded  the 
great  rights  of  the  people.  If  it  was  wrong,  are  not  the  Repre- 
sentatives of  the  American  people  ready  to  vote  for  justice  and 
right,  no  matter  what  it  costs  the  Treasury?  [Applause.]  It 
was  an  inexcusable  innovation.  L p to  the  time  of  these  treaties 
i:  was  the  policy  to  pay  the  Indian  so  much  tc  leave  his  old  hunt- 
ing grounds  and  the  graves  of  his  fathers  and  go  forth  and  find 
new  ones. 

Why  did  not  the  Government  treat  with  h-'m  for  his  removal 
instead  of  recognising  him  as  the  :wner  of  the  soil  in  fee  simple 
to  be  purchased  by  the  acre:  The!  Indian  bounds  his  claim  of 
ownership  by  rivers  and  mountain  ranges,  and  within  these  air- 
cumserib ed  hunts  he  claims  ownership  n : : inly  to  the  land  b ut  to 
the  wild  beasts  that  hide  in  its  jungles:  to  the  Lsh  that  swim  in 
aa 


4 


its  running  waters,  and  to  the  birds  of  the  air  that  disport  in  the 
foliage  of  its  green  forests.  And  he  has  just  as  good  a title  to 
them  all  as  he  has  to  any  one  of  them.  [Applause.] 

Yet  this  Government  sends  forth  commissioners  to  treat  with 
these  Indians  as  the  owners  in  fee  simple  of  a portion  of  the  earth 
created  for  the  benefit  of  mankind  and  for  the  support  and  happi- 
ness of  the  race.  And  then  we  are  asked  to  take  from  the  settler 
who  makes  his  home  on  these  lands  the  money  that  may  be  nec- 
essary to  pay  for  the  fault  of  the  Government  in  making  any  such 
arrangement. 

The  public  lands  of  this  Union  are  the  patrimony  of  the  sons  of 
toil.  Whoever  applies  his  labor  to  an  unoccupied  portion  of  the 
earth's  surface  in  its  cultivation  seals  his  title  of  rightful  owner- 
ship thereto  in  the  sweat  of  his  face  as  it  moistens  the  soil  he 
tills.  [Applause.]  What  rightful  claim  can  the  Indian  have  by 
merely  wandering  over  a wilderness  with  a fishing  rod  or  a bow 
and  arrow,  doing  fiothing  in  the  way  of  cultivation  and  occupa- 
tion to  establish  his  right  to  the  soil? 

Blackstone  said — and  every  law  student  reads  the  passage  in  the 
beginning  of  his  studies: 

That  there  is  no  foundation  in  nature  or  natural  law  why  a set  of  words 
on  parchment  should  convey  the  dominion  to  land.  The  use  and  occupancy 
alone  gives  to  man  an  exclusive  right  to  retain  in  a permanent  manner  the 
specific  land  which  before  belonged  generally  to  everybody,  but  particularly 
to  nobody. 

[Applause.] 

Yet  this  Government  violates  that  great  principle;  and  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Interior  sends  here  as  a reason  why  this  amendment 
should  not  be  adopted  the  same  argument  in  almost  the  words  of 
James  Buchanan  in  his  message  vetoing  the  first  free-homestead 
bill  that  passed  Congress.  [Applause.] 

[Here  the  hammer  fell.] 


THE  GOVERNMENT'S  PLIGHTED  FAITH  IN 
THE  PAYMENT  OF  ITS  DEBTS. 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON.  GALUSHA  A.  GROW, 

OF  PENNSYLV  ANIA, 


IN  THE 


HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 


Thursday,  May  26,  1898. 


WASHINGTON. 

1898. 


The  Government’s  Plighted  Faith  in  the  Payment  of  Its 

Debts. 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON.  GALUSHA  A,  GEOW, 

OF  PENNSYLVANIA, 

In  the  House  oe  Representatives, 

' Thursday,  May  26,  1S98. 

The  House  being  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union, 
and  having  under  consideration  the  bill  (H.  E.  10353)  to  amend  the  internal- 
revenue  law,  relating  to  distilled  spirits,  and  for  other  purposes — 

Mr.  GROW  said: 

The  honor  and  good  faith  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  is  pledged  to  the  payment  of  its  debts  in  all  cases  where  the 
kind  of  payment  is  not  specified  in  such  legal  tender,  if  it  has 
more  than  one,  as  its  creditors  may  select  at  the  time  of  payment. 
For  the  reason,  if  there  was  no  other,  that  the  Government  alone, 
in  the  exercise  of  its  arbitrary  though  legal  power,  makes  the 
tenders  for  the  payment  of  debts,  and  can  change  them  at  its  own 
will,  without  the  consent  of  its  creditors.  There  are  no  two 
parties,  and  there  can  not  be,  to  this  transaction.  The  Govern- 
ment, therefore,  in  promising  to  pay  its  creditors  a certain  number 
of  the  units  of  its  own  coinage  must,  in  honor  and  business  fair- 
ness, allow  its  creditors  to  select  the  tender  in  which  to  receive 
the  payment. 

In  the  business  transactions  of  individuals  neither  party  has 
anything  to  do  with  making  tenders  for  the  payment  of  debts  and 
are  in  no  way  responsible  for  their  change.  Hence,  each  takes 
the  chance  as  to  what  may  be  legal  tender  at  the  time  of  the  ma- 
turity of  their  contracts.  The  debtor,  being  the  party  to  pay,  has 
the  right,  therefore,  in  all  business  fairness,  to  select  the  tender 
with  which  he  will  pay.  Not  so  with  the  Government,  which 
3396  8 


4 


makes  the  tenJers,  when  it  is  itself  the  debtor,  for  the  Govern- 
ment is  bound  to  see  to  it  that  all  the  tenders  it  creates  for  the 
payment  of  debts  are  at  all  times  the  equivalent,  one  with  the 
other,  in  commercial  value.  And  it  is  this  obligation  which  in 
business  fairness  makes  its  position  in  the  payment  of  its  debts 
different  from  that  of  individuals. 

If  that  is  not  the  case,  then  the  Government  could  make  a ten- 
der perfectly  worthless  with  which  to  pay  its  debts,  while  a tender 
good  in  commercial  value  is  in  use.  For  instance,  the  lawmaking 
power  could  buy  copper  and  have  each  ounce  of  it  stamper  at  the 
mint  $1,  then  make  such  dollars  a tender  in  the  payment  of  debts, 
and  with  such  copper  money  pay  all  its  coin  obligations.  That 
would  be  just  as  honest  and  just  as  fair  a business  transaction  as 
to  pay  its  coin  obligations  in  any  legal-tender  dollar  of  a commer- 
cial value  of  30  or  40  cents  or  less. 

All  the  laws  ever  enacted  changing  the  ratio  in  weight  of  one 
money  metal  to  another  were  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  one  the 
equivalent  of  the  other  in  commercial  value.  If  the  Government 
neglects  this  plain  duty,  it  can  not  on  the  first  great  principle  of 
equity  take  advantage  of  its  own  wrong.  It  must,  therefore,  in 
honor  and  fair  business  dealing  allow  its  creditors  the  option  of 
the  tenders  in  the  payment  of  its  debts.  It  has  the  power,  of 
course,  to  pay  its  debts  in  anything,  or  not  to  pay  them  at  all. 
For  it  makes  the  legal  tenders  and  can  not  be  sued  without  its 
consent.  Hence  it  is  under  a double  obligation,  in  honesty  and 
fair  dealing,  to  allow  its  creditors  the  option  of  tenders,  if  it  has 
more  than  one.  at  the  time  of  payment. 

The  creditors  of  governments  which  have  a bank  like  England, 
France,  and  Germany,  through  which  they  do  their  financial  busi- 
ness, collecting  the  government  revenues  and  holding  them  on 
deposit,  must  receive  over  the  counters  of  such  banks  the  legal 
tender  offered  by  the  bank,  for  the  bank  in  this  case,  not  the  gov- 
ernment, is  the  debtor,  and  the  bank  does  not  make  the  tenders. 
Hence,  it  has  the  same  right  of  option  in  paying  its  debts  as  an 
individual.  But  when  the  government  itself  is  the  debtor,  and 
makes  the  tenders  for  the  payment  of  debts,  it  has  in  business 
fairness  no  such  right  of  option  in  paying  its  debts  at  the  counter 

of  its  own  treasury. 

3396 


0 


The  law  of  1862,  which  authorized  the  first  issue  of  legal-tender 
Treasury  notes,  by  its  accepted  terms  at  the  time  of  passage  and 
by  the  understanding  of  its  supporters  bound  the  Government  in 
good  faith  to  pay  its  debts  in  gold  or  its  equivalent. 

In  discussions  upon  debatable  legislation  it  is  always  desirable 
to  have  the  correct  history  of  such  legislation,  and,  if  possible,  the 
reasons  existing  for  it  at  the  time  of  its  enactment,  especially  if 
the  laws  are  of  an  unusual  character.  The  House  will,  therefore, 
bear  with  me  in  recalling  briefly  a part  of  the  history  of  the  legis- 
lation creating  our  national  debt. 

The  first  session  of  the  Thirty-seventh  Congress,  in  obedience  to 
the  proclamation  of  the  President,  convened  on  Thursday,  July  4, 
1861.  On  Monday,  the  8th  of  July,  the  House  was  fully  organ- 
ized by  the  election  of  all  its  officers  and  the  appointment  of  its 
standing  committees.  Both  Houses  adjourned  finally  on  Monday, 
the  6th  day  of  August,  having  been  in  session  thirty-three  days, 
including  five  Sundays.  In  these  twenty-eight  working  days  acts 
were  passed  revising  the  tariff,  levying  direct  and  internal  taxes, 
reorganizing  the  military  establishment  of  the  Government,  en- 
larging the  Navy.  increasing  the  Regular  Army,  authorizing  the 
enlistmentand  equipment  of  500,000  men,  and  a loan  of  $250,000,000 
was  authorized  and  $300,000,000  were  appropriated  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  Army  for  the  then  current  year. 

At  that  session,  after  disposing  of  the  foregoing  measures  and 
others  of  public  necessity,  it  was  not  thought  advisable  to  take 
up  the  financial  question,  therefore  no  change  was  made  in  the 
money  then  in  use,  though  every  member  of  either  House  re- 
garded the  financial  policy  to  be  adopted  by  the  Government  to 
meet  the  contingencies  of  the  then  overhanging  future  as  the 
most  vital  as  well  as  the  most  difficult  question  to  be  settled  in 
legislation.  The  shot  had  already  been  fired  at  Sumter  which, 
like  that  at  Lexington,  rang  round  the  world. 

At  the  next  session,  beginning  December  2.  1861,  almost  three 
months  were  spent  in  the  discussion  and  consideration  of  the 
financial  policy  to  be  adopted  by  the  Government.  One  hundred 
and  fifty  million  dollars  in  gold  had  already  been  borrowed  from 

the  banks  of  Boston,  New  York,  and  Philadelphia.  Specie  pay- 

3396 


6 


ments  had  been  suspended  in  the  previous  November.  A bill  was 
finally  matured  in  the  House,  authorizing  the  issue  of  bonds, 
bearing  6 per  cent  interest,  to  the  amount  of  $500,000,000,  since 
known  as  the  five-twenties,  and  $150,000,000  of  Treasury  notes, 
known  as  “greenbacks,”  without  interest,  but  legal  tender  in 
payment  of  debts. 

At  that  time  the  Government  was  in  a life-and-death  struggle 
for  its  existence.  Its  Treasury  was  empty  and  its  credit  greatly 
impaired.  At  such  a time  the  Government  was  about  to  appeal 
for  a loan  of  $500,000,000,  to  be  repeated  how  soon,  or  how  often, 
no  human  sagacity  could  then  foretell,  with  which  to  provision, 
clothe,  and  equip  its  defenders  on  the  battlefield.  Without  such 
munitions  of  war,  no  matter  how  brave  their  hearts,  their  arms 
would  have  been  as  powerless  as  if  paralyzed  in  death.  The  vital 
question  with  those  charged  with  the  administration  of  the  Gov- 
ernment at  that  time  was.  therefore,  how  to  give  the  greatest  pos- 
sible credit  to  the  Government  in  securing  such  loans  of  money  as 
it  must  have. 

This  question  gave  rise  to  greatly  diverse  opinions.  There  was 
no  difference  of  opinion  in  either  House  as  to  the  bonds  to  be  au- 
thorized. The  differences  of  opinion  were  as  to  the  kind  of  Treas- 
ury notes,  if  any,  to  be  issued.  There  were  those  in  both  Houses, 
not  small  in  number  nor  of  inferior  ability  or  statesmanship,  who 
were  opposed  to  issuing  any  kind  of  Treasury  notes,  and  who  ad- 
vocated the  policy  of  keeping  the  Government  on  a specie-paying 
basis  by  selling  bonds  in  the  market  for  gold  with  which  to  do  it. 
Others  were  opposed  to  that  policy  and  in  favor  of  issuing  Treas- 
ury notes,  made  legal  tender  for  all  debts  and  demands  of  every 
kind.  Others  favored  the  issue  of  Treasury  notes  legal  tender  for 
all  dues  to  the  United  States  and  for  all  claims  and  demands 
against  the  United  States  of  every  kind  whatsoever,  but  not  a 
legal  tender  between  individuals. 

In  the  bill  that  first  passed  the  House  these  notes  were  made 
legal  tender  in  payment  of  debts  of  all  kinds,  public  and  private. 
The  Senate  amended  the  bill  by  adding  after  claims  and  demands 
against  theUnited  States,  “except  interest  on  the  bonds  and  notes 

of  the  United  States.”  The  reason  for  this  amendment  was  elab- 
8396 


/ 


7 

orately  presented  by  Senator  Fessenden,  of  Maine,  chairman  of 
the  Senate  Finance  Committee.  Senator  Collamer,  of  Vermont, 
discussing  the  amendment,  said: 

The  bill  as  it  came  from  the  House  of  Representatives,  in  order  to  give 
currency  to  these  notes,  provided  that  men  should  have  a right,  when  they 
had  a quantity  of  them,  to  fund  them  in  Government  bonds,  having  twenty 
years  to  run,  with  interest  payable  in  what?  In  these  very  notes  that  they 
had  put  in.  It  was  saying  to  them,  “ If  you  will  only  take  these  notes,  you 
may  fund  them  in  a bond,  and  take  your  pay  in  the  notes  again.”  What  a 
financial  juggle  is  that?  That  is  the  form  in  which  it  came  to  us  from  the 
other  House;  but  an  amendment  reported  by  our  committee  and  adopted 
by  the  Senate  provides  that  the  interest,  at  least,  shall  be  payable  in  money. 

This  amendment  to  pay  interest  in  coin  bad  been  reported  unan- 
imously by  the  Finance  Committee,  and  it  passed  the  Senate 
without  a division.  This  amendment  and  one  pledging  the  pro- 
ceeds from  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  in  payment  of  the  bonds — 
after  the  bill  was  returned  from  the  Senate — caused  a long  and 
very  earnest  debate  in  the  House.  The  following  extracts  from 
speeches  made  in  the  House  will  show  what  was  the  prevailing 
sentiment  at  that  time  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  “coin  ” in 
the  amendment: 

Mr.  Spaulding,  chairman  of  the  subcommittee  on  Ways  and 
Means,  who  reported  the  bill  that  passed  the  House,  and  who  was 
in  favor  of  only  one  kind  of  money,  in  opposing  the  amendment 
of  the  Senate  to  pay  interest  on  the  bonds  and  notes  in  coin,  said: 

All  bonds  and  Treasury  notes  heretofore  issued  are  payable  generally 
without  specifying  that  either  the  principal  or  the  interest  shall  be  paid  in 
coin,  and  yet  the  legal  effect  is  the  same. 

****** 

By  all  means  let  us  pay  the  interest  in  gold  to  those  who  desire  it,  if  it  is 
possible  to  do  so. 

Suppose  the  public  debt  to  amount  to  the  sum  of  51,000,000,000  in  one  year 
from  this  time.  Six  per  cent  interest  on  this  sum  would  require  $60,000,000 
in  gold  to  be  obtained  annually— $30,000,000  every  six  months  to  pay  interest. 
How  is  the  gold  to  be  obtained?  i’ou  will  notget  it  from  taxes  or  from  duty 
on  imports,  because  these  by  the  bill  are  payable  in  Treasury  notes.  The 
only  way.  then,  to  get  this  gold  will  be  by  selling  your  bonds  at  the  market 
price  to  procure  it.  This  is  a large  amount  of  coin  to  be  procured  on  a forced 
sale  of  your  bonds— $30,000,000  every  six  months. 

******* 

A sum  greater  than  all  the  gold  possessed  by  the  New  York  banks  at  this 
time.  The  fact  that  you  create  by  your  bill  this  large  demand  for  gold  will 
tend  greatly  to  enhance  the  price. 

Mr.  Pomeroy,  who  had  opposed  the  issue  of  legal-tender  paper 

3396 


8 


in  any  form,  in  advocating  the  amendment  of  the  Senate  to  pay 
interest  in  coin,  said: 

The  credit  of  the  Government  has  been  recently  brought  to  the  test  of 
practical  experiment  in  a much  more  favorable  time  than  the  present,  when 
the  banks  were  plethoric  with  gold  beyond  all  former  experience  and 
promptly  meeting  all  engagements  in  coin. 

Now,  this  paper  is  or  is  not  equal  to  gold.  My  colleague  may  take  which- 
ever horn  of  the  dilemma  he  pleases.  If  it  is  not,  it  is  folly  to  suppose  that 
people  are  voluntarily  going  to  place  themselves  in  a position  where,  for  a 
term  of  years,  they  compel  themselves  to  receive  it  in  interest  and  assume 
all  the  risk  of  depreciation.  If  it  is  equal,  then  there  can  be  no  unjust  dis- 
crimination in  paying  interest  in  gold. 

* * * * * * * 

While  we  exercise  the  power  to  compel  the  people  to  receive  it  as  gold  in 
the  payment  of  debts,  we  unfortunately  have  not  the  power  to  compel  them 
to  loan  it  back  to  us  on  time  and  receive  more  of  the  same  kind  in  interest. 
******* 

The  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  are  talking  about  paying,  whereas  the 
problem  is  how  to  borrow.  If  capital  will  seek  Treasury  notes  at  par  for  the 
purpose  of  investmentin  bonds,  with  the  interest  payable  in  notes,  how  much 
more  readily  will  it  seek  the  same  notes,  at  a slight  depreciation,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  such  investment  with  the  interest  payable  in  gold. 

* * * * * * * 

N o inducement  is  offered  by  the  House  to  fund  these  notes  in  the  nature  of 
the  new  security.  The  credit  of  the  Government  is  alike  bound  for  the  pay- 
ment of  both  classes  of  indebtedness  ultimately  in  gold. 

Mr.  Stevens,  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 
who  had  from  the  first  advocated  but  one  kind  of  money,  either 
all  paper  or  all  coin,  to  he  used,  whichever  it  might  be,  for  all 
purposes  whatsoever,  said: 

All  classes  of  people  shall  take  these  notes  at  par  for  every  article  of  trade 
or  contract,  unless  they  have  money  enough  to  buy  United  States  bonds,  and 
then  they  shall  be  paid  in  gold. 

In  discussing  the  report  of  the  committee  of  conference  on  the 
bill,  Mr.  Stevens,  who  was  chairman  of  the  committee,  said  in  ref- 
erence to  the  action  of  the  conference  committee: 

We  provided  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  order  to  raise  gold  to 
pay  this  interest,  should  throw  into  market  the  bonds  of  the  United  States 
at  whatever  they  would  bring.  * * * We  saw  no  way  but  to  raise  the  coin 
in  some  other  mode  than  selling  our  paper.  * * * We  made  the  imports 
payable  in  coin. 

In  all  the  discussion  in  either  House  on  paying  interest  in  coin 
the  words  “coin”  and  “gold”  were  used  indiscriminately.  No 
one  had  any  idea  then  that  the  interest  would  ever  be  paid  in 
silver  or  that  the  bonds  at  their  maturity  would  be  paid  in  any- 
thing but  gold,  as  all  such  bonds  had  always  been  paid  thereto- 
fore. 

3390 


9 


The  House  finally  concurred  in  the  Senate  amendment  for  pay- 
ing interest  in  coin,  but  nonconcurred  in  the  pledge  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands.  The  committee  of  confer- 
ence on  the  bill  struck  out  the  pledge  of  the  proceeds  from  the 
sales  of  public  lands  and  inserted  in  lieu  thereof  that  duties  on 
imports  should  be  paid  in  coin,  and  that  was  agreed  to  in  both 
Houses  without  a division.  In  this  way  the  disagreement  between 
the  two  Houses  was  finally  settled,  and  the  act  of  February  25, 
1862,  became  a law  with  the  following  provisions  relative  to  the 
United  States  notes  and  the  national  debt  that  might  be  created: 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States 
of  America  in  Congress  assembled , That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  is 
hereby  authorized  to  issue  on  the  credit  of  the  United  States  $150,000,000  of 
United  States  notes,  not  bearing  interest,  payable  to  bearer,  at  the  Treasury 
of  the  United  States. 

* * * * * * * 

And  such  notes  herein  authorized  shall  be  receivable  in  payment  of  all 
taxes,  internal  duties,  excises,  debts,  and  demands  of  every  kind  due  to  the 
United  States,  except  duties  on  imports,  and  of  all  claims  and  demands 
against  the  United  States  of  every  kind  whatsoever,  except  for  interest  upon 
bonds  and  notes,  which  shall  be  paid  in  coin;  and  shall  also  be  lawful  money 
and  a legal  tender  in  payment  of  all  debts,  public  and  private,  within  the 
United  States,  except  duties  on  imports  and  interest  as  aforesaid. 

******* 

And  such  United  States  notes  shall  be  received  the  same  as  coin  at  their 
par  value  in  payment  for  any  loans  that  may  be  hereafter  sold  or  negotiated 
by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Sec.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  to  enable  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury to  fund  the  Treasury  notes  and  floating  debt  of  the  United  States  he  is 
hereby  authorized  to  issue  on  the  credit  of  the  United  States  coupon  bonds 
or  registered  bonds  to  an  amount  not  exceeding  $500,000,000,  redeemable  at 
the  pleasure  of  the  United  States  after  five  years,  and  payable  twenty  years 
from  date,  and  bearing  interest  at  the  rate  of  6 per  cent  per  annum,  paya- 
ble semiannually. 

* *****  * 

Sec.  5.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  all  duties  on  imported  goods  shall 
be  paid  in  coin,  and  the  coin  so  paid  shall  be  set  apart  as  a special  fund  and 
shall  be  applied  as  follows: 

First.  To  the  payment  in  coin  of  the  interest  on  the  bonds  and  notes  of  the 
United  States. 

Second.  To  the  purchase  or  payment  of  1 per  cent  of  the  entire  debt  of 
the  United  States,  to  be  made  within  each  fiscal  year  after  the  1st  day  of 
July,  1862. 

That  was  the  pledge  of  the  nation  to  pay  its  debt,  principal  and 
interest,  in  coin,  which  everybody  understood  at  the  time  to  be 
gold.  This  pledge  was  to  collect  the  duties  on  imports  in  coin  and 
to  set  apart  the  coin  so  collected  in  payment  of  the  interest  on  the 

bonds  and  notes  of  the  United  States  and  for  payment  of  1 per 

3396 


10 


cent  of  the  entire  debt  of  the  United  States  annually  after  July, 
A.  D.  1862.  This  pledge  was  made  in  the  darkest  hour  of  the 
nation’s  history,  and  is  a component  part  of  its  act  making  paper 
a legal  tender,  and  the  terms  “ coin  ” and  “ gold  ” were  used  inter- 
changeably by  the  lawmakers  at  that  time,  and  with  the  general 
expectation  that  the  interest  and  the  debt  would  both  be  paid  in 
gold.  Until  the  last  dollar  of  the  Government  indebtedness  cre- 
ated by  that  legislation  is  paid  the  Government  is  bound  in  honor 
and  good  faith  to  pay  it  in  such  tenders  as  its  creditors  may  select 
at  the  time  of  payment. 

By  these  two  amendments  to  the  original  bill — one  made  in  the 
Senate  without  a division,  to  pay  the  interest  on  the  bonds  in  coin; 
the  other  to  collect  the  duties  on  imports  in  coin,  made  in  confer- 
ence committee  and  agreed  to  unanimously  by  both  Houses — the 
national  currency  was  in  reality  kept  on  a specie  basis,  and  the 
industries  of  the  country  were  saved  from  serious  depression,  if 
not  entire  prostration.  Had  the  duties  on  imports  been  collected 
in  this  paper  money,  with  nothing  to  prevent  its  depreciation  ex- 
cept its  being  legal  tender  in  payment  of  debts,  it  would  have 
reduced  the  rate  of  duties  so  it  would  have  resulted  in  almost  free 
importation  of  foreign  manufactures  from  all  countries,  to  the 
great  detriment  of  our  home  industries. 

With  the  interest  on  the  national  debt  payable  in  paper,  the 
capitalist,  no  matter  how  patriotic,  would  have  hesitated  to  part 
with  his  money  and  receive  nothing  as  an  income  for  the  support 
of  his  family  except  these  paper  promises,  which  would  fluctuate 
in  their  purchasing  power  with  the  uncertainties  hanging  over 
the  battlefield,  and  with  an  additional  doubt  whether  this  paper 
might  not  possibly  in  the  end  become  entirely  worthless  by  the 
excessive  issues  required  by  the  necessities  of  the  Government 
itself.  But  with  an  income  while  the  conflict  might  last  that 
could  not  be  destroyed  or  lessened  in  its  purchasing  power,  men 
of  wealth  were  ready  to  part  with  their  money  and  trust  to  the 
future  for  the  repayment  of  the  principal.  Of  all  the  legislation 
of  that  period,  these  two  provisions  of  paying  interest  in  coin  and 
collecting  duties  in  coin  were  the  wisest  and  the  best. 

Both  came  almost  by  accident,  so  far  as  human  foresight  is  con- 
cerned. They  were  not  the  conception  of  any  one  member  of  either 
3396 


11 


Honse,  but  resulted  from  the  disagreement  of  the  two  Houses  in 
discussions  as  to  the  best  method  to  give  the  greatest  credit  to  the 
Government  in  borrowing  money  for  its  then  pressing  needs. 

The  provision  of  the  act  of  February  25,  1862,  which  requires 
the  interest  on  the  bonds  of  the  United  States  to  be  paid  in  coin 
receives  not  a little  denunciation  from  the  Democrats  and  Popu- 
list members  of  the  House  whenever  they  have  occasion  to  refer 
to  it.  And  they  freely  charge  that  this  provision  must  have  crept 
into  the  bill  by  some  lobby  influence  around  these  Halls,  in  the 
favorite  phrase  of  Populistic  orators,  of  “organized  greed’’— of 
bankers  and  capitalists  seeking  their  own  avaricious  and  selfish 
gains;  and  that  it  was  such  influences  which  controlled  in  the 
enactment  of  that  legislation. 

Sir,  the  only  lobby  influence  around  these  Halls  when  that  act 
passed  was  a lobby  of  patriotism.  It  ill  becomes  this  generation 
to  asperse  the  memory  of  the  dead  or  the  characters  of  the  living 
legislators  of  those  times.  But  they  need  no  vindication  in  words 
of  eulogy.  The  far-reaching  beneficent  results  of  their  acts  will 
be  their  vindication  through  all  time  for  wise  statesmanship  and 
patriotic  devotion  to  the  best  interests  of  their  country  in  that 
crisis  hour  of  its  existence.  And  the  only  vindication  for  unselfish 
patriotism  required  for  what  is  known  as  the  “moneyed  class”  of 
our  citizens  at  that  period  is  a correct  knowledge  of  the  history  of 
their  acts.  The  banks  of  Boston.  New  York,  and  Philadelphia,  at 
the  first  outbreak  of  the  rebellion,  loaned  the  Government  $150,- 
000,000  in  gold,  on  the  application  of  Mr.  Chase,  then  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury. 

Justice  to  this  greatly  maligned  class  of  American  citizens,  liv- 
ing and  dead,  compels  me  to  say  in  this  connection  that  the  prompt- 
ness and  patriotism  with  which  the  bankers  and  the  capitalists  of 
the  country  at  that  time  devoted  their  wealth  to  the  cause  of  their 
country  was  excelled  only  by  that  of  the  soldier  who  periled  his 
life  on  its  tented  fields. 

In  support  of  this  declaration  I trust  the  House  will  pardon  me 
in  calling  attention  to  a remarkable  instance,  not  then  uncommon 
except  in  its  degree. 

Two  war  ships  were  being  built  on  the  Clyde,  in  England,  and 

were  almost  ready  to  sail.  Charles  Francis  Adams,  then  our  rain- 
3396 


12 


ister  to  the  Court  of  St.  James,  called  upon  Lord  John  Russell, 
secretary  of  state  for  Great  Britain,  with  a request,  based  on  the 
recognized  obligations  of  strict  neutrality  between  belligerents, 
that  an  order  should  be  issued  by  the  governmeut  preventing  the 
sailing  of  these  cruisers.  He  presented  the  evidence,  full  and 
complete,  which  he  had  procured  through  his  detectives,  that  the 
cruisers  were  built  with  money  furnished  by  the  Confederacy, 
were  to  be  manned  with  Confederate  sailors,  and  outside  the  3-mile 
limit  were  to  take  aboard  their  war  armament  and  go  forth  on 
their  mission  of  destruction  of  American  commerce  upon  the  high 
seas. 

Lord  Russell,  after  listening  patiently  to  the  presentation  of  the 
case  by  Mr.  Adams,  declined  to  comply  with  his  request.  Mr. 
Adams,  rising  from  his  seat  and  turning  to  leave  the  audience 
chamber,  said  (in  that  sharp,  concise  tone  of  voice  and  with  com- 
pressed lips,  which  always  characterized  him  in  earnest  speech): 
“ I need  not  remind  your  lordship  this  is  war.  ” 

Next  day  Mr.  Adams  received  a note  from  Lord  Russell  request- 
ing him  to  call  at  the  foreign  office.  At  their  interview  Lord  Rus- 
sell said  to  Mr.  Adams  that  it  had  been  decided  to  issue  the  order 
preventing  the  sailing  of  the  cruisers,  provided  he  would  place  in 
the  Bank  of  England,  within  forty-eight  hours,  £1,000,000  sterling 
in  gold,  to  be  held  as  an  indemnity  fund  against  any  award  of 
damages  that  might  be  obtained  against  the  Government  in  the 
court  of  admiralty. 

Mr.  Adams  returned  to  his  office  perplexed  and  in  great  doubt 
what  to  do;  for  it  seemed  impossible  for  him  in  this  short  time  to 
comply  with  the  conditions  imposed.  The  evening  shadows  of 
the  day  scarcely  closed  in,  when  a gentleman  called  at  Mr.  Adams’s 
residence  and  said  to  the  servant  at  the  door:  “Tell  Mr.  Adams 
that  a gentleman  wishes  to  see  him  on  strictly  private  but  im- 
portant business.  ” 

In  response  to  this  message,  Mr.  Adams  repaired  to  his  recep- 
tion room  and  found  there  George  Peabody,  then  a London  banker. 
Mr.  Peabody,  addressing  Mr.  Adams,  said: 

I know  all  about  your  interview  to-day  with  Lord  Russell;  and  realizing 
how  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  it  would  be  for  you  to  procure  a loan  of 
$5,000,000  in  the  time  specified,  even  if  you  had  the  authority  of  your  own 
Government,  duly  authenticated,  I have  come  to  say  to  you  that  at  10  o’clock 
3396 


13 


to-morrow  I will  see  tliat  §5,000,000  in  gold  is  placed  to  your  credit  in  the  Bank 
of  England  on  one  condition,  that  it  shall  be  a profound  secret  how  this  money 
is  obtained,  known  only  to  President  Lincoln  and  such  of  his  officials  as  must 
know  about  it.  I will  take  the  bonds  of  the  United  States  as  soon  as  they 
can  be  prepared  and  sent  to  you  here  for  delivery  in  payment  of  this  loan. 

Nest  day  Mr.  Adams  called  on  Lord  Russell  and  the  £1,000,000 
sterling  in  gold  was  placed  on  deposit  in  the  Bank  of  England,  as 
required  by  Lord  Russell,  and  an  order  was  issued  preventing 
the  sailing  of  these  two  cruisers. 

By  this  prompt,  patriotic  act  of  this  millionaire  banker  the 
lives  and  the  property  of  American  citizens  were  saved  from  de- 
struction upon  the  wide  ocean  and  the  cause  of  the  American 
Union  from  impending  disasters.  And  by  this  act  the  ruling 
classes  of  England  were  saved  from  a hatred  and  rancor  in  the 
hearts  of  the  loyal  American  people  deep  and  bitter  as  ever  burned 
in  the  bosoms  of  the  old  Continentals  against  the  redcoats  and 
the  hireling  soldiery  of  George  III. 

I judge  what  would  have  been  the  feelings  of  the  American  peo- 
ple at  that  time  by  my  own.  Such  a national  animosity  in  this 
period  of  the  world's  history  between  these  two  English-speaking 
peoples  would  have  been  a calamity  to  the  well-being  of  the  future 
of  mankind  scarcely  less  than  would  be  the  dismemberment  and 
destruction  of  the  union  of  these  States. 

The  Republic  owes  it  to  itself  some  day  to  erect  in  front  of  this 
Capitol  two  colossal  statues— the  one  to  be  inscribed  in  letters  of 
living  light,  “ George  Peabody — the  Massachusetts  boy,  the  Lon- 
don banker,  the  devoted  patriot  in  the  hour  of  his  country’s  great- 
est need; the  other  to  be  inscribed  in  characters  as  enduring  as 
the  granite  of  his  native  Quincy,  liI  need  not  remind  your  lord- 
ship  this  is  war.  ” Such  a group  to  stand  through  all  the  years  of 
the  long-coming  future  a memorial  of  one  of  the  most  vital  inci- 
dents in  the  history  of  the  new  Republic. 

But  to  return  from  this  digression  into  which  I have  been  led 
in  vindicating  the  patriotic  devotion  of  all  classes  of  loyal  Ameri- 
can citizens,  including  banker,  merchant,  and  capitalist,  in  the 
five  years  of  the  crisis  period  of  the  country's  history  from  1861,  I 
will  call  the  attention  of  members  to  the  wording  of  the  act  to 
strengthen  the  public  credit,  passed  March  18,  1869: 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States 
of  America  in  Congress  assembled , That  in  order  to  remove  any  doubt  as  to 
3396 


14 


the  purpose  of  the  Government  to  discharge  ah  just  obligations  to  the  public 
creditors,  and  to  settle  conflicting  questions  and  interpretations  of  the  law 
by  virtue  of  which  such  obligations  have  been  contracted,  it  is  hereby  pro- 
vided and  declared  that  the  faith  of  the  United  States  is  solemnly  pledged 
to  the  payment  in  coin  or  its  equivalent  of  all  the  obligations  of  the  United 
States  not  bearing  interest,  known  as  United  States  notes,  and  of  all  the 
interest-bearing  obligations  of  the  United  States,  except  in  cases  where  the 
law  authorizing  the  issue  of  any  such  obligation  has  expressly  provided  that 
the  same  may  be  paid  in  lawful  money  or  other  currency  than  gold  and  silver. 
But  none  of  said  interest-bearing  obligations  not  already  due  shall  be  re- 
deemed or  paid  before  maturity,  unless  at  such  time  United  States  notes  shall 
be  convertible  into  coin  at  the  option  of  the  holder,  or  unless  at  such  time 
bonds  of  the  United  States  bearing  a lower  rate  of  interest  than  the  bonds 
to  be  redeemed  can  be  sold  at  par  in  coin.  And  the  United  States  also 
solemnly  pledges  its  faith  to  make  provision,  at  the  earliest  practicable 
period,  for  the  redemption  of  the  United  States  notes  in  coin. 

The  act  expressly  declared  that  the  debt  is  payable  in  coin  or 
its  equivalent,  and  it  provided  that  no  interest-bearing  obligations 
of  the  Government  shall  be  redeemed  before  maturity  unless  the 
United  States  notes  are  at  the  time  convertible  into  coin  at  the 
option  of  the  holder.  What  was  the  reason  for  any  such  legisla- 
tion at  that  time?  For  the  pledge  in  the  act  of  February  25, 1862, 
was  specific  that  the  Government  would  pay  the  interest  on  its 
bonds  in  coin,  and  would  pay  in  coin  1 per  cent  of  its  entire  debt 
every  year  after  1862. 

Why  was  this  act  of  1869  passed?  At  the  time  there  was  neither 
gold  nor  silver  circulating  as  money.  Specie  payments  were  sus- 
pended in  November,  1861,  and  were  not  resumed  until  January, 
1879.  Coin  at  that  time  meant  gold,  or  its  equivalent.  The  equiva- 
lent was  either  silver  of  the  commercial  value  in  the  markets  of 
the  world  of  $1.29  an  ounce,  or  paper  made  the  equivalent  of  gold 
by  adding  the  discount,  whatever  it  might  be. 

The  Greenback  party,  which  sprang  into  existence  in  1867  and 
1868,  insisted  that  these  bonds  were  payable  in  greenbacks  at  the 
expiration  of  five  years  from  the  date  of  their  issue;  for  the  reason, 
they  said,  that  the  wording  on  the  face  of  the  bond  was  that  the 
United  States  were  indebted  in  dollars,  and  the  wording  of  the 
greenback  on  its  face  was  that  the  United  States  promised  to  pay 
dollars.  Therefore,  whenever  the  time  for  payment  matured,  the 
promise  on  the  greenback  to  pay  dollars,  being  a legal  tender,  was 
good  for  the  payment  of  these  bonds,  that  on  their  face  called  only 
for  dollars,  though  the  law  under  which  they  were  issued  said 

they  should  be  paid  in  coin  dollars. 

3396 


15 


To  put  at  rest  this  question  then  agitating  the  public  mind,  and 
in  order  to  remove  all  doubt  and  settle  conflicting  questions  and 
interpretations  of  law  by  the  cheap- money  advocates  of  that  time, 
the  act  of  1869  was  passed,  declaring  that  the  faith  of  the  United 
States  is  solemnly  pledged  to  the  payment  of  the  national  debt  in 
coin  or  its  equivalent. 

The  wording  of  the  act  is  that  “the  faith  of  theUnited  States  is 
hereby  solemnly  pledged  tothepayment  in  coin,  or  its  equivalent.  ” 
Could  it  have  been  intended  in  using  the  word  “equivalent”  to 
declare  that  the  silver  dollar  of  the  weight  of  41 2|  grains  of  stand- 
ard silver,  worth  in  the  markets  of  the  world  in  1869,  when  this 
declaration  was  made,  a little  over  100  cents,  is  the  equivalent  to 
the  silver  dollar  of  4124  grains  of  standard  silver,  worth  in  the 
markets  of  the  world  in  1898  from  42  to  45  cents? 

The  act  of  July  14,  1870,  to  authorize  the  refunding  of  the  na- 
tional debt,  is  especially  explicit  as  to  the  kind  of  coin  in  which 
the  debt  was  to  be  redeemed,  “ in  coin  of  the  present  standard 
value;  ” that  is,  of  the  standard  value  of  July  14,  1870.  At  that 
time  the  silver  dollar  was  equal  in  commercial  value  to  the  gold 
dollar,  and  each  was  of  the  value  of  100  cents.  There  is  nothing 
said  in  this  act,  or  any  other  law,  about  weight  being  an  equiva- 
lent to  value. 

Y et  all  the  advocates  of  paying  the  bonds  of  the  Government  in 
silver  claimed  that  the  weight  of  412|  grains  of  standard  silver 
is  equivalent  at  all  times  to  100  cents  in  value,  making  no  dis- 
tinction between  debt-paying  value  and  commercial  value,  and 
ignoring  entirely  the  words  of  the  act  of  July  14,  1870,  which  are, 
“Redeemable  in  coin  of  the  present  standard  value.”  At  that 
time  the  standard  value  of  coin  was  equivalent  and  equal  to  gold; 
silver  and  gold  dollars  were  then  of  the  same  commercial  and 
debt-paying  value. 

Treasury  notes  of  1890,  issued  in  payment  for  the  purchases  of 
silver  bullion,  are  in  specific  terms  payable  in  either  gold  or  silver 
at  the  option  of  the  Government.  If  the  Government  has  the 
option  of  tenders  rightfully  in  paying  its  debts,  what  necessity 
was  there  for  so  specifying  in  this  case?  It  was  thought  by  those 
who  advocated  it  that  as  it  was  silver  received,  it  was  fair  and 

right  to  pay  in  the  same  kind  of  money;  and  for  that  reason  it 
338fi 


16 


was  specifically  provided  that  the  Government  had  the  option. 
And  the  only  reason  urged  at  that  time  why  the  Government 
should  have  the  option  was  that  it  was  paying  in  just  the  kind  of 
money  it  received. 

But  for  the  act  of  Congress  pledging  the  good  faith  of  the  Gov- 
ernment to  keep  all  kinds  of  money— gold,  silver,  and  paper— on  a 
parity  with  each  other,  the  Treasury  notes  of  1890  might  be  paid 
in  silver  coin.  But  these  notes,  being  in  every  way  exceptional  in 
character,  stand  by  themselves  in  every  respect  an  exception  to 
the  general  rule.  There  is  not  a bond  of  the  United  States  to-day, 
and  there  never  has  been  one  except  those  issued  in  aid  of  the  Pa- 
cific railroads,  nor  is  there  any  other  obligation  of  the  Govern- 
ment, not  specifying  a specific  kind  of  payment,  that  the  Govern- 
ment is  not  bound  in  good  faith  and  fair,  honest,  business  dealing 
to  pay  at  maturity  in  legal-tender  money  at  the  option  of  the 
creditor,  if  the  Government  has  more  than  one  kind  of  tender,  at 

the  time  of  payment. 

3296 

© 


ANNEXATION  OF  THE  HAWAIIAN  ISLANDS. 


SPEECH 


HON.  GALUSHA  A.  GROW, 

OF  PENNSYLVANIA, 


IN  THE 


HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 


Tuesday,  June  14,  1898. 


•WASHINGTON, 

1898. 


HON. 


SPEECH 

OF 

GALUSHA  A.  GROW. 


The  House  having  under  consideration  the  joint  resolution  (H.  Res.  259)  to 
provide  for  annexing  the  Hawaiian  Islands  to  the  United  States — 

Mr.  GROW  said: 

Mr.  Speaker:  This  nation  needs  the  Hawaiian  Islands  for  the 
benefit  of  its  commerce  in  peace  and  its  protection  in  war.  It  is  a 
fact  conceded  by  everybody  that  for  commerce  between  the  west- 
ern shores  of  this  continent  and  Asia  there  must  be  some  inter- 
mediate land  for  a coaling  station  for  ships  engaged  in  commerce. 
The  Hawaiian  Islands  hold  such  a position,  being  for  all  practical 
purposes  about  midway  between  the  two  continents,  with  a land- 
locked harbor  unsurpassed  in  size  and  safety.  To  secure  the 
possession  of  this  harbor  for  the  future  against  all  contingencies 
the  sovereignty  of  the  islands  is  necessary,  for  whoever  owns  the 
islands  owns  the  harbor.  All  treaties  whatsoever  would  fall  with 
a change  of  ownership. 

It  is  claimed  by  the  opponents  of  annexation  that  there  is  an- 
other route  of  equal  commercial  advantage  and  less  in  distance 
from  continent  to  continent  by  the  way  of  Unalaska.  It  is  a 
route  discovered  in  the  argument  of  this  question  and  not  here- 
tofore discovered  by  commerce.  I venture  the  assertion  that  few, 
if  any,  vessels  in  trade  between  the  American  and  Asiatic  conti- 
nents ever  yet  sailed  on  this  route  from  San  Francisco  to  any  port 
in  Asia,  unless  it  was  one  in  the  Arctic  seas. 

When  presented  in  this  debate,  it  reminded  me  of  the  chap  in 
New  York  who  surprised  the  stockbrokers  for  a short  time  with 
a declaration  that  he  had  found  a railroad  route  between  New 
York  and  Chicago  250  miles  shorter  than  any  existing  one,  or  any 
other  that  could  be  constructed,  and  he  could  prove  it  by  his  map. 
When  the  map  was  produced,  there  was  a heavy  red  straight  line 
drawn  from  New  York  to  Chicago,  which  crossed  the  Alleghany 
Mountains  at  the  highest  summit  in  the  range.  And  this  was  his 
shortest  route.  The  map  was  correct,  but  the  capital  to  build  the 
railroad  was  not  in  sight. 

Lines  drawn  on  the  map  of  a wide  ocean  representing  the  chan- 
nels of  commerce  are  very  well  if  commerce  follows  such  lines. 
But  if  it  does  not,  reasons  why  it  might  do  so  are  of  little  conse- 
quence. If  the  reasons  urged  against  annexation  now  had  pre- 
vailed while  the  purchase  of  Alaska  was  pending,  we  should  not 
have  this  new  logical  route  at  all,  for  Alaska  itself  would  still  be 
Russian  territory.  There  never  has  been  any  acquisition  of  ter- 
ritory without  more  or  less  opposition  at  the  time  of  the  acquisi- 
tion. and  the  reasons  were  very  much  the  same  as  those  now 
offered — unconstitutional  and  dangerous  to  the  liberties  of  the 
country. 

I will  not  take  the  time  of  the  House  in  discussing  any  consti- 
tutional question  relative  to  the  acquisition  of  territory  by  this 
3437  3' 


4 


Government.  Mr.  Jefferson  said  in  1803  that  there  was  no  grant 
of  power  in  the  Constitution  for  such  acquisition;  yet,  beginning 
with  his  Administration,  we  have  acquired  foreign  territory  in 
area  more  than  three  times  as  great  as  that  claimed  by  the  original 
thirteen  colonies  or  which  the  Government  owned  at  the  time  of 
the  adoption  of  our  present  Constitution. 

For  almost  a century,  beginning  with  Jefferson,  the  nation  has 
been  acquiring  territory  by  treaty  and  by  joint  resolution  and 
under  Administrations  of  different  political  parties.  If  anything 
can  be  settled  by  the  uniform  practice  of  the  Government,  the 
power  to  acquire  territory  ought  to  be  settled  by  this  uniform, 
unbroken  practice  for  almost  a century  ^sustained  by  every  branch 
of  the  Government  and  ratified  universally  by  the  people. 

I am  content  to  follow  this  uniform,  unbroken  practice  in  the 
exercise  of  a power  that  must  certainly  rest  somewhere  in  the 
Government,  or  it  could  not  have  been  thus  sustained  by  all  de- 
partments of  the  Government  for  this  long  period. 

This  question  is  not  a law  to  be  construed;  it  is  a power  of  gov- 
ernment to  be  exercised.  And  by  that  exercise  in  the  past  and  by 
that  alone  the  nation  has  in  this  first  hundred  years  of  its  exist- 
ence been  enabled  to  expand  from  thirteen  feeble  colonies,  hemmed 
in  by  the  Atlantic  Ocean  in  front,  the  Mississippi  River  in  the 
rear,  and  Spanish  and  French  dominion  on  the  south,  to  forty-five 
independent  Commonwealths,  spanning  a whole  continent  from 
ocean  to  ocean  and  extending  through  almost  every  zone. 

For  the  exercise  of  this  power  to  acquire  territory  it  only  needs 
a clear,  unequivocal  commercial  necessity  for  the  American  peo- 
ple and  a willing  consent  of  the  people  occupying  the  territory  to 
be  acquired.  In  such  case,  while  there  could  be  no  question  as  to 
constitutional  power,  the  circumstances  existing  at  the  time  would 
determine  as  to  the  wisdom  of  its  exercise. 

The  great  reason  for  the  exercise  of  this  power  now  by  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States  applies  to  Hawaii  and  not  to  any  other 
portion  of  the  earth.  It  does  not  apply  to  Mexico,  Canada,  Cuba, 
or  any  other  territory  on  the  American  continent.  For  the  rea- 
son that  after  Cuba  shall  have  established  a republic,  the  institu- 
tions of  all  these  countries  being  substantially  republican  can  not 
be  a menace  in  any  way  to  our  liberties,  and  there  are  no  great 
commercial  necessities,  nor  can  there  be  any,  requiring  any  gov- 
ernment changes  in  our  territorial  relations  with  either  of  these 
nations.  Hence  in  our  commercial  necessities  Hawaii  stands 
alone,  separate  and  distinct  from  any  other  portion  of  the  earth’s 
surface,  and  in  no  way  connected  with  any  question  that  may 
hereafter  arise  as  to  other  nations. 

The  ultimate  annexation  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands  to  the  United 
States  is  not  a new  question.  Every  President  except  one  for 
half  a century  has  notified  the  nations  of  the  earth  that  the  people 
of  these  islands  could  never  unite  their  destinies  with  any-  nation 
except  our  own.  When  England,  in  1843,  took  possession  of  these 
islands,  Mr.  Legare.  then  Secretary  of  State,  notified  the  Govern- 
ment of  Great  Britain  of  our  position,  and  she  withdrew.  Later, 
when  France  attempted  to  take  possession,  Mr.  Webster,  then 
Secretary  of  State,  repeated  to  France  in  substance  Mr.  Legare’s 
dispatch  to  England,  and  France  withdrew. 

For  fifty  years  every  President  except  Cleveland  has  notified 
the  world  that  no  other  nation  would  be  permitted  to  establish 
their  sovereignty  over  these  islands,  and  that  the  people  thereon 
must  be  allowed  to  control  their  own  destiny.  Grover  Cleveland 
3437 


5 


was  the  first  official  in  the  administration  of  this  Government  to 
attempt  a reversal  of  its  historical  policy  relative  to  Hawaii. 

He  undertook  to  restore  over  that  people  a monarchy  over- 
thrown by  its  liberty-loving  subjects,  and,  using  the  revenue  cut- 
ters and  war  ships  of  the  nation  with  shotted  guns  as  a menace  in 
the  harbor  of  Hawaii,  he  directed  his  accredited  agent  to  the  new 
Republic  to  demand,  in  the  name  of  the  United  States,  that  its 
chosen  officials  should  abdicate  their  powers,  and,  kneeling  in  ab- 
ject submission  at  the  foot  of  the  restored  throne,  kiss  the  extended 
hand  of  its  dusky  Queen.  This  attempt  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States  to  restore  a defunct  monarchy  will  brand  Grover 
Cleveland  through  all  time  in  the  annals  of  impartial  history  as 
recreant  to  liberty  and  false  to  the  spirit  and  genius  of  free  insti- 
tutions. 

If  I had  any  doubt  as  to  the  vital  importance  of  these  islands  to 
the  future  commercial  well-being  of  the  United  States,  I should 
hesitate  long  before  setting  up  my  own  judgment  against  the 
united  opinions  of  the  long  line  of  eminent  statesmen  who  have 
been  intrusted  with  the  administration  of  public  affairs,  and  who 
are  held  in  so  high  estimation  for  political  wisdom  by  their  coun- 
trymen of  all  political  parties.  The  gentleman  from  Arkansas 
[Mr.  DinsmoreJ  quoted  a general  opinion  by  Mr.  Sherman  against 
the  acquisition  of  foreign  territory,  and  then  attempted  to  impeach 
his  own  witness,  who,  as  Secretary  of  State,  signed  the  treaty  for 
the  acquisition  of  these  very  islands  included  in  the  resolutions 
before  us. 

He  could  have  quoted  with  equal  force  from  Mr.  Legate  and 
Mr.  Webster  in  their  correspondence  with  England  and  France, 
in  which  they  declared  that  it  was  not  the  policy  of  this  Govern- 
ment to  acquire  colonial  possession,  and  yet  they  both  insisted 
that  these  islands,  by  the  consent  of  their  people,  must  some  day 
become  a part  of  American  territory,  or  at  least  that  they  never 
could  by  our  consent  become  a part  of  any  other.  And  now  when 
their  people  desire  to  cast  their  political  fortunes  with  ours  and  we 
refuse,  will  it  be  claimed  by  anybody  that  henceforth  we  can 
rightfully  prevent  them  from  casting  their  lot  with  any  other  na- 
tion? Such  a refusal  would  be  an  attempt  on  our  part  to  impose 
upon  them  a despotic  control  more  odious  than  was  that  of  Cleve- 
land. 

The  gentleman  from  Arkansas  [Mr.  Dinsmore]  said  that  the 
time  might  come  when  it  would  be,  perhaps,  advisable  to  annex 
these  islands,  but  not  now.  Now  is  the  only  time  that  the  United 
States  can  rightfully  dispose  of  that  question.  After  our  rejec- 
tion the  destiny  of  these  islands  is  in  the  keeping  of  their  people, 
and  to  be  determined  by  them  alone.  Whether  their  fortunes 
shall  then  be  cast  with  England,  France,  Japan,  or  any  other 
nation  will  be  for  them  to  determine. 

All  questions  arising  out  of  the  existing  war  with  Spain  properly 
belong  by  themselves  and  are  to  be  settled  in  view  of  the  circum- 
stances and  conditions  existing  at  the  time  of  their  settlement. 

In  the  discussion  on  the  question  be  ore  us  we  have  heard  much 
about  wars  and  their  dangers  to  liberty.  War  prosecuted  for 
selfish  ends  in  upholding  despotic  dynasties  or  for  the  mere  ex- 
tension of  territorial  dominion  is  an  unmitigated,  inexcusable 
barbarism. 

But  wars,  with  all  their  miseries  and  woes,  in  the  interest  of 
humanity,  in  behalf  of  struggling  races  or  nationalities,  to  secure 
or  regain  their  inalienable  rights,  have  been  of  great  benefit  to 


6 


mankind.  In  the  world's  decisive  battles  from  Marathon  to  Get- 
tysburg, such  battles  as  have  changed  for  all  time  the  current  of 
human  events  and  the  destiny  of  empires,  great  battalions  have 
always  marched  in  the  rear  of  great  ideas. 

The  generation  of  the  American  people  now  fast  passing  away 
have  had  not  a little  home  experience  in  the  horrors  of  war.  They 
have  seen  their  country  shrouded  in  the  sable  habiliments  of 
mourning  and  woe  and  flooded  with  widows'  and  orphans’  tears. 
And  to  the  end  of  this  generation  an  occasional  tear  for  the  un- 
returning brave  will  glisten  in  the  eye  of  bereavement  around 
disconsolate  firesides.  But  the  new  Republic  is  worth  over  the 
old  the  priceless  sacrifice  of  blood  and  sorrow  which  it  cost. 
While  “peace  has  its  victories  no  less  renowned  than  war,”  yet 
most  of  the  mighty  achievements  in  the  onward  progress  of  the 
race  to  a better  civilization  have  been  wrought  by  the  sword. 

It  seems  to  be  a part  of  the  plans  of  Divine  Providence  that 
every  marked  advance  in  civilization  must  begin  in  mighty  con- 
vulsions. The  moral  law  was  first  proclaimed  in  the  thunders  of 
Sinai,  and  the  earthly  mission  of  the  Saviour  of  mankind  closed 
with  the  rending  of  mountains  and  the  throes  of  the  earthquake. 
The  Goddess  of  Liberty  herself  was  born  in  the  shock  of  battle, 
and  amid  its  carnage  has  carved  out  some  of  our  grandest  vic- 
tories, while  o’er  its  crimson  fields  the  race  has  marched  on  to 
higher  and  nobler  destinies.  As  the  lightnings  of  heaven  rend 
and  destroy  only  to  purify  and  reinvigorate,  so  freedom's  cannon 
furrows  the  fields  of  decaying  empires  and  seeds  them  anew  with 
human  gore,  from  which  springs  a more  vigorous  race  to  cherish 
the  hopes  and  guard  the  rights  of  mankind. 

The  millennium,  long  promised,  when  the  lion  and  the  lamb 
will  lie  down  together  and  a little  child  shall  lead  them,  will 
some  time  come.  But  not  till  all  governments  are  based  on  the 
consent  of  the  governed  and  every  human  being  is  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  liberty  protected  by  law.  Then,  and  not  till  then,  can  the 
sword  be  beat  into  plowshares  and  the  spear  into  pruning  hooks. 
Until  that  time  the  ear  of  humanity  will  be  pained  with  the  roar 
of  hostile  cannon  and  the  angels  must  weep  over  the  martyred 
brave. 

When  the  smoke  vanished  from  the  last  battlefield  of  the  Amer- 
ican civil  war  and  its  armed  hosts  returned  to  their  homes,  lay- 
ing aside  their  armor  for  the  implements  of  the  various  avocations 
of  peace,  there  was  a universal  belief  that  the  Republic  had  seen 
its  last  war.  It  was  not  thought  then  that  any  circumstances 
could  possibly  ever  arise  for  the  Government  to  call  its  citizens 
again  from  their  peaceful  pursuits  to  the  tented  field.  But  such 
a summons  has  gone  forth,  and  the  drumbeat  and  tramp  of 
marching  armies  are  again  heard,  and  the  thrilling  reports  of  un- 
precedented naval  victories  come  floating  over  the  seas. 

This  nation  is  at  war  with  Spain  to  end  her  brutal  warfare  upon 
women  and  children  and  to  put  a stop  to  the  infliction  of  her 
cruel  atrocities  upon  a neighboring  people,  and  because  she  failed 
to  maintain  in  the  Island  of  Cuba  a government  able  and  willing 
to  protect  the  lives  of  American  seamen  under  the  flag  of  their 
country  on  a mission  of  peace  to  her  ports. 

In  justice  to  the  memory  of  the  hero  martyrs  who  died  under  the 
flag  of  their  country  by  Spanish  treachery,  and  in  behalf  of  the 
claims  of  a common  humanity,  of  a people  doomed  to  extermina- 
tion by  starvation  and  the  sword,  this  nation  demanded  that  Spain 
3437 


7 


should  withdraw  her  flag  and  forever  abandon  her  sovereignty 
over  the  Island  of  Cuba. 

For  this  purpose  the  President  was  authorized  tointervene  with 
the  Army  and  the  Navy  of  the  United  States  and  stop  this  doubly 
cruel  and  barbarous  warfare.  When  that  shall  have  been  done 
the  people  of  Cuba  cau  then  establish  for  themselves  a free  and 
independent  government  to  be  recognized  by  the  United  States  of 
America  as  a sister  republic. 

In  the  discharge  of  this  national  obligation  to  humanity  and  to 
liberty,  as  well  as  the  higher  obligation  and  duty  of  protecting 
the  lives  of  American  seamen,  under  the  flag  of  their  country 
wherever  it  floats,  this  nation  has  intervened  with  its  great  power 
for  the  accomplishment  of  such  a purpose.  And  when  it  shall 
have  been  accomplished,  the  vindication  of  the  patriot  heroes  who 
found  a watery  grave  in  the  harbor  of  Havana  will  be  the  expul- 
sion forever  of  Spanish  sovereignty  from  the  American  Continent. 
And  these  heroes  will  not  then  have  died  in  vain.  The  tablet 
that  will  bear  their  memory  through  all  time  can  then  be  in- 
scribed: 

Whether  on  the  scaffold  high 
Or  in  the  battle’s  van, 

The  fittest  place  where  man  can  die 
Is  where  he  dies  for  man! 

The  objects  to  be  obtained,  and  the  only  ones  expected  when 
Congress  passed  the  declaration  of  war  against  Spain,  were  con- 
fined to  the  Island  of  Cuba.  And  the  gentleman  from  Missouri 
[Mr.  Bland]  and  the  gentleman  from  Tennessee  [Mr.  Richard- 
son] quoted  the  declared  purpose  in  that  declaration  of  war  to 
sustain  their  positions  against  any  acquisition  of  territory  as  a 
result  of  the  war. 

I agree  with  them  that  when  that  declaration  of  war  passed  there 
was  no  purpose  or  thought  by  anybody  of  acquiring  additional 
territory  as  a result  of  this  war.  Humanity  alone  controlled 
in  the  passage  of  this  declaration.  But  a nation  which  appeals 
to  battle  for  the  settlement  of  any  question  must  be  ready  to  meet 
any  and  all  responsibilities  resulting  therefrom,  whether  foreseen 
or  not. 

The  same  Congress  of  the  United  States  which  authorized  the 
equipment  of  500,000  men  to  preserve  this  Union  declared  by  reso- 
lution that  the  war  was  not  to  be  prosecuted  for  the  emancipation 
of  slavery.  Yet  the  first  gun  fired  in  that  conflict  was  the  death 
knell  of  human  bondage,  and  the  sun  in  his  course  across  the  con- 
tinent from  ocean  to  ocean  no  longer  rises  on  a master  or  sets  on 
a slave. 

In  our  national  destiny  what  new  pathways  may  be  blazed  out 
by  American  cannon  on  land  and  battle  ships  on  the  seas  no  pro- 
phetic ken  can  now  foresee.  And  how  and  in  what  way  the  Amer- 
ican people  ought  to  discharge  the  new,  unforseen,  unexpected 
responsibilities  cast  upon  them  in  far-off  Asia  no  human  sagacity 
can  now  foretell. 

If  the  intervention  of  this  nation  in  the  affairs  of  Spain  in  be- 
half of  humanity  and  liberty  in  Cuba  shall  result,  in  the  provi- 
dences of  God,  in  the  emancipation  of  ten  millions  of  people  in 
her  colonies  from  her  despotic  rule,  shall  the  American  people 
shrink  from  these  new  responsibilities  in  behalf  of  liberty  and 
humanity?  Has  the  rule  of  Spain  in  the  Philippines  been  any 
more  humane  than  in  Cuba?  Through  along  history  her  cruelty 
in  peace  and  brutality  in  war  have  produced  at  intervals  long  or 
3437 


8 


6hort  the  Alvas  and  the  Weylers,  counterparts  of  the  Neros  and 
Caligulas  of  pagan  Rome  in  the  zenith  of  her  brutal  shows  of 
dying  gladiators  and  women  and  children  torn  to  pieces  by  wild 
beasts  in  the  arena  of  her  Coliseum,  a gala-day  spectacle  for 
Roman  holidays. 

Within  a week  after  the  declaration  of  war  against  Spain  by  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  8,000,000  of  people  in  the  Philip- 
pines that  had  been  subjected  for  four  hundred  years  to  the  des- 
potic, cruel  rule  of  Spain,  such  as  she  had  exercised  over  the  Island 
of  Cuba,  were  liberated  from  their  thraldom  by  a naval  victory 
in  battle  unparalleled  in  the  world's  history,  unexpected  and  un- 
thought of  when  the  declaration  of  war  against  Spain  passed. 

Commodore  Dewey,  with  a squadron  of  the  American  Navy, 
cruising  in  Asiatic  waters  on  the  customary  mission  of  his  Gov- 
ernment to  friendly  nations,  suddenly  finds  himself  shut  out  of 
the  ports  and  harbors  of  every  nation  by  the  enforcement  of  the 
international  law  of  strict  neutrality  between  belligerents.  With 
the  Stars  and  Stripes  flying  at  the  masthead  of  his  squadron  he 
enters  a harbor  of  Spain,  destroying  its  land  fortifications  and 
sinking  a formidable  navy  moored  there  for  their  defense,  with- 
out the  loss  of  a man  or  a ship,  and  with  slight  injury  to  either. 

Does  anyone  who  believes  in  the  control  of  an  overruling 
Providence  in  the  affairs  of  men  believe  that  such  a victory  was 
a mere  accident?  There  is  a divinity  in  the  destiny  of  nations  as 
well  as  in  the  lives  of  individuals — 

That  shapes  our  ends,  rough  hew  them  how  we  will. 

In  the  retributions  for  organized  national  wrongs  it  is  fixed  in 
the  immutable  decrees  of  that  overruling  Providence  that  nations 
which  incorporate  into  their  institutions,  their  customs,  or  their 
laws  a barbarism  that  blunts  the  sense  of  justice  and  chills  the 
humanity  of  their  people  will  soon  or  late  surely  die.  It  is  the 
great  fact  stamped  on  all  the  crumbling  ruins  that  strew  the  path- 
way of  empires. 

If  we  divest  ourselves  of  the  egotistical  belief  so  congenial  to 
human  nature  that  the  generation  of  the  present  is  wiser  than  any 
that  will  succeed  it,  wre  can  then  safely  intrust  the  settlement  of 
all  public  questions  to  the  considerate  judgment  of  the  generation 
that  may  be  called  upon  to  settle  them,  in  full  confidence  that  it 
will  be  done  quite  as  wisely  and  as  well  as  it  would  be  if  done  by 
ourselves.  Let  the  present  generation  with  bold  and  manly  hearts 
meet  its  own  responsibilities  to  liberty  and  humanity,  and  settle 
them  in  its  own  best  judgment  in  view  of  surrounding  circum- 
stances. without  reference  to  supposed  conjectural  conditions  in 
the  future. 

Trust  no  future,  howe’er  pleasant! 

Let  the  dead  past  bury  Its  dead! 

Act.  act  in  the  living  present! 

Heart  within,  and  God  o’erhead! 

The  starry  banner  of  our  fathers,  baptized  in  patriot  blood  in 
the  first  and  second  war  of  American  independence,  and  re- 
christened in  the  mighty  conflict  of  arms  in  this  generation  will 
henceforth,  over  whatever  portion  of  the  earth's  surface  it  may 
float,  be  the  emblem  of  liberty,  justice,  and  the  inalienable  rights 
of  mankind. 

3437 


o 


Free  Coinage  of  Silver, 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON.  GALUSHA  A.  GROW, 

OF  PENNSYLVANIA, 

In  the  House  of  Representatives, 

Thursday,  February  13,  1896. 

The  House  being  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  and 
having  under  consideration  the  bill  (H.  R.  2904)  to  maintain  and  protect  the 
coin  redemption  fund  and  to  authorize  the  issue  of  certificates  of  indebted- 
ness to  meet  temporary  deficiencies  of  revenue — 

Mr.  GROW  said: 

Mr.  Chairman:  Money  adds  no  value  to  anything  without  pre- 
existing labor.  Law,  within  its  jurisdiction,  fixes  the  debt-paying 
value  of  money  by  making  a legal  tender;  but  real  value  in  money 
for  trade  and  commerce  is  no  more  the  creature  of  law  than  is 
value  in  flocks,  herds,  and  cultivated  fields.  Law  fixes  the  unit 
of  value,  but  can  not  fix  or  make  the  value  in  the  unit.  That  is 
done  by  the  dealers  in  the  commodities  for  which  money  is  ex- 
changed, and  it  is  graded  according  to  the  cost  of  production,  the 
supply  and  demand  of  money  and  the  commodities  at  the  time  of 
the  exchange.  The  dealer  in  the  products  of  labor  fixes  the  value 
of  what  shall  be  received  for  them.  Like  the  wood-chopper  on  the 
banks  of  the  Mississippi  River,  near  the  close  of  the  rebellion,  when 
hailed  by  a steamboat  captain,  who  asked  whether  his  wood  was 
for  sale,  and  he  answered,  “ Yes.”  The  captain  inquired,  “ How 
much  a cord?”  “ How  do  you  propose  to  pay?”  “ In  Confederate 
money.”  “ Then  cord  for  cord.”  [Laughter.] 

If  it  were  possible  to  pass  a law  which  would  be  sustained  by 
the  courts  providing  that  every  3-year-old  steer  should  pay  a debt 
of  $20,  that  would  be  the  debt-paying  value  of  the  steer;  but  the 
butcher,  if  he  bought  it,  would  pay  only  what  its  meat,  when 
dressed,  could  be  sold  for  to  his  customers.  Law  can  compel  the 
creditor  to  receive  from  his  debtor  what  the  law  says  shall  dis- 
charge the  debt.  But  law  can  not  compel  a dealer  in  the  products 
of  labor  in  the  course  of  trade  to  exchange  his  ownership  for  any- 
thing that  he  does  not  at  the  time  consider  an  equivalent  of  what 
he  parts  with. 

When  contracting  a debt,  if  the  seller  knows  what  he  must  re- 
ceive his  debt  in  and  does  not  believe  the  article  worth  in  real  value 
the  commodity  he  is  selling,  he  adds  to  the  price  of  his  commodity 
so  as  to  make  it  even;  and  the  greater  his  doubt  or  distrust  the 
greater  per  cent  he  adds,  until  the  distrust  makes  the  proposed 
article  of  exchange  worthless.  So  every  dealer  in  commodities 
judges  for  himself  as  to  the  value  of  articles  in  actual  exchange. 
But  when  the  value  of  his  commodity  is  put  into  a debt,  then  lie 
must  take  in  its  discharge  what  the  law  declares  legal  tender. 

Legal  tender  creates  no  value;  it  simply  declares  what  shall  pay 
a debt.  A thing  of  no  commercial  value  is  not  an  equivalent  of  a 
product  of  labor,  and  no  legislative  enactment  can  make  it  such. 
It  may  be  used  as  such  temporarily,  under  the  stress  of  some 
overruling  necessity;  but  if  continued  any  length  of  time  will, 
2244  1 


2 


by  the  inevitable  expansion  and  contraction  that  must  follow, 
end  in  bankruptcy  and  financial  ruin.  The  question  before  us  is 
whether  it  would  be  wise  for  this  Government  alone,  without  the 
cooperation  of  any  other  nation,  to  open  its  mints  to  the  free  and 
unlimited  coinage  of  silver,  stamping  371^  grains  of  pure  silver 
as  a dollar.  When  it  is  thus  stamped  with  the  unit  we  have  fixed 
bylaw,  its  debt-paying  value  is  fixed  at  $1,  but  its  commercial 
value  is  not  changed.  If  it  were,  what  would  be  the  use  of  put- 
ting the  stamp  “ One  dollar  ” on  371]-  grains.  Why  not  stamp  that 
amount  of  silver  as  $1,000?  We  could  do  it  just  as  easily. 

[Here  the  hammer  fell.] 

Many  Members.  Goon! 

Mr.  McCALL  of  Massachusetts.  I ask  unanimous  consent  that 
the  gentleman's  time  be  extended  for  five  minutes. 

There  was  no  objection. 

Mr.  GROW.  I thank  the  committee,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  its 
courtesy,  and  I will  proceed  as  speedily  as  possible  with  my  illus- 
tration in  reference  to  the  unit  value  of  money. 

For  successful  business  at  home  and  in  trade  with  the  nations, 
debt-paying  value  and  commercial  value  ought  to  be  the  same. 
And  it  is  essential  that  a standard  or  measure  of  values  should  be 
recognized  alike  by  all  the  dealers  in  the  commodities  or  real 
values  for  which  the  standard  or  measure  is  exchanged.  Money 
is  the  commodity  used  to  facilitate  the  exchange  of  other  com- 
modities and  to  settle  the  difference  in  the  values  of  the  commodi- 
ties. Its  chief  employment  is  to  pay  balances  in  business.  The 
standard  or  measure  of  values  should  therefore  retain  the  same 
value  when  paid  out  that  it  had  when  it  was  received;  otherwise 
somebody  would  be  the  loser  by  its  use.  And  it  should  contain 
the  greatest  amount  of  commercial  value  in  the  smallest  space; 
for  weight  and  bulk  affect  the  convenience  and  expense  in  its  use. 

Gold  [holding  up  a twenty-dollar  gold  piece]  represents  what  the 
commercial  nations  of  the  earth,  or  the  most  of  them,  have  adopted 
as  a standard  or  measure  of  value.  In  this  gold  piece  there  are 
twenty  units  of  value  by  our  law;  and  in  this  roll  of  20  silver  dol- 
lars there  are  the  same  number.  But  the  bulk  of  the  silver  is  over 
twenty  times  greater  and  the  weight  is  sixteen  times  greater.  The 
value  of  the  twenty  units  in  the  silver,  if  there  were  no  pledge  of 
the  Government  to  keep  them  on  a parity  in  the  markets,  would 
to-day  be  about  one-half  of  the  commercial  value  of  the  same  units 
in  the  gold  dollar,  while  the  debt-paying  value  would  be  the  same 
in  each.  If,  then,  there  is  to  be  but  one  standard  of  value,  the  gold 
would  be  preferable  by  reason  of  its  greatly  less  bulk  and  weight. 
If  the  two  standards  of  gold  and  silver  could  be  kept  equal — that 
is,  interchangeable  in  purchasing  power — then  it  would  be  best  to 
have  both,  for  thereby  the  silver  could  be  added  to  the  volume  of 
circulation. 

If  our  mints  were  now  opened  to  the  free  and  unrestricted  coin- 
age of  silver  at  16  to  1,  what  would  he  the  result?  A merchant  in 
France,  Germany,  or  England  owing  our  citizens  $1,000,000  could 
bring  silver  and  have  it  coined  here;  and  if  the  commercial  value 
of  silver,  371J  grains,  in  his  country  were  50  cents,  he  could  have 
what  cost  him  $500,000  stamped  at  our  mint  $1,000,000,  with 
which  he  could  pay  his  debts.  But  an  American  merchant  owing 
in  either  of  these  countries  could  not  do  the  same  thing  by  taking 
American  silver  dollars  there.  His  $1,000,000  in  standard  Ameri- 
can silver  dollars  would  pay  his  creditors  there  only  $500,000. 

[Here  the  hammer  fell.  ] 

2244 


O 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  WHOLE  HOUSE 
ON  THE  STATE  OF  THE  UNION,  AND  ITS 
USES  IN  LEGISLATION. 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON.  GALUSHA  A.  GROW, 

OF  PENNSYLVANIA, 


IN  THE 


HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 


DECEMBER  14,  1898. 


WASHINGTON. 

1898. 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON.  GALUSHA  A.  GEOW. 


COMMITTEE  OF  THE  WHOLE  HOUSE  ON  THE  STATE  OF  THE  UNION. 

Mr.  DINGLEY.  Mr.  Speaker.  I ask  unanimous  consent  that 
the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  Grow]  may  make  a state- 
ment that  will  be  of  value  and  interest  to  the  House,  as  I know  it 
will,  respecting  the  origin  and  functions  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union.  He  desires  to  occupy  five  or 
ten  minutes,  and  I ask  that  he  he  allowed  to  do  so. 

The  SPEAKER.  Is  there  objection? 

There  was  no  objection. 

Mr.  GROW.  Mr.  Speaker,  at  the  last  session  of  Congress,  in  a 
debate  that  sprung  up  during  quite  a little  excitement  over  the 
question  as  to  the  right  of  members  to  debate.  I stated,  in  answer 
to  some  queries,  my  recollection  as  to  the  origin  of  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  and  its  uses,  and 
why  such  a committee  existed  in  the  American  Congress.  The 
first  great  rule  of  parliamentary  bodies  everywhere  is  that  debate 
must  be  confined  to  the  subject  under  consideration. 

In  the  old  Congress  under  the  Articles  of  Confederation  and 
Perpetual  Union  the  title  of  all  its  acts  was  “The  States  in  com- 
mittee assembled.”  That  was  the  beginning  of  legislation  by  the 
colonies  after  their  first  union.  In  that  committee  of  the  States 
assembled  resolutions  were  adopted  stating  what  they  thought 
advisable  to  be  done,  and  these  resolutions  were  submitted  to  the 
separate  colonies  to  be  acted  upon.  The  Congress  of  the  Confed- 
eration could  only  recommend. 

The  Convention  that  framed  our  present  Constitution  passed  a 
resolution  at  the  beginning  of  its  sessions  “That  the  House  re- 
solve itself  into  a Committee  of  the  Whole  House  to  consider  the 
state  of  the  Union.”  The  wording  of  this  resolution  would  be 
most  appropriate  for  use  in  naming  the  committee  when  rules 
came  to  be  adopted  for  legislation  in  Congress.  One  of  the  rules 
adopted  on  the  report  of  a committee  of  which  Madison  was  a 
member,  in  the  First  Congress,  in  1789,  even  before  the  inaugura- 
tion of  the  President,  was: 

It  shall  be  a standing  order  of  the  day  through  the  session  for  the  House  to 
resolve  itself  into  a Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the  Union. 

The  original  formula  for  the  report  of  the  Chairman  of  this  com- 
mittee, and  which.  I think,  continued  unbroken  until  quite  re- 
cently, was:  “ The  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the  state  of 
the  Union  have  had  under  consideration,  according  to  order,  the 
Union  generally,  and  particularly  a bill  ” (stating  its  number  and 
title),  “and  have  come  to  no  resolution  thereon,”  or  “have  adopted 
sundry  amendments,”  as  the  case  might  be.  The  reason  for  the  adop- 
tion of  the  word  resolution  in  this  formula  was  that  the  original 
3608  3 


4 


reports  of  this  committee  were  all  in  resolutions,  as  embodying, 
after  full  consideration,  the  sense  of  the  committee  as  to  wliat 
ought  to  be  done  on  the  subject  referred  to. 

Mr.  Madison,  in  the  First  Congress,  on  his  resolution  in  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  declar- 
ing that  certain  duties  ought  to  he  levied  on  imported  merchan- 
dise, which  was  the  basis  of  the  first  tariff  passed  by  Congress, 
said,  in  reference  to  discussions  in  that  committee,  that — 

We  must  consider  the  general  interest  of  the  Union,  for  it  is  as  much  every 
gentleman’s  duty  to  consider  as  is  the  local  or  State  interest. 

After  our  present  Constitution  was  adopted  the  same  idea  was 
carried  into  the  proceedings  of  Congress  under  the  name  of  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  of  America,  and  among  the  first 
rules  adopted  under  the  new  Constitution  was  one  that  the  House 
should  resolve  itself  each  day  into  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
House  on  the  state  of  the  Union.  And  if  you  will  look  at  the 
Annais  of  Congress  you  will  find  the  chairman  of  that  commit- 
tee very  often  reporting,  as  there  was  nothing  before  the  com- 
mittee specifically,  that  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the 
state  of  the  Union  have  had.  according  to  order,  the  Union  gen- 
erally under  consideration  and  have  come  to  no  resolution  thereon 
Hence  comes  this  word  “resolution”  in  the  report  from  that  com- 
mittee now. 

Each  day  the  House  was  obliged  to  go  into  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  and  in  that  committee 
any  member  offered  a resolution  stating  what  he  thought  ought 
to  he  done.  That  resolution  was  discussed  and  amended.  The 
first  tariff  act,  as  I have  just  said,  was  passed  in  that  way.  Mr. 
Madison  offered  a resolution  that  duties  ought  to  be  levied  on 
imported  merchandise,  and  after  discussion  and  amendment  it  was 
reported  to  the  House. 

The  House  could  amend  these  resolutions  as  it  pleased  after  they 
were  reported  from  the  committee,  and  then  a committee  was 
specially  appointed  to  bring  in  bills,  if  necessary,  which  bills  were 
referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House:  and  in  the  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole  the  legislation  was  perfected.  But  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the  Union  was  simply  to  pre- 
pare business  and  give  every  member  an  opportunity  to  express 
his  views  upon  all  things  relating  to  the  Government  of  the  Union 
and  its  people;  and  therefore  all  propositions  for  legislation  began 
with  this  committee,  differing  probably  from  any  legislative  body 
in  the  world. 

For  there  is  no  government  to-day  on  the  face  of  the  earth  that 
has  the  American  system  of  independent  States,  with  three  coor- 
dinate departments  with  almost  full  legislative  powers  over  their 
respective  territorial  limits,  and  those  States  in  their  relation  to  a 
general  government  over  all  like  ours;  so  there  was  a necessity  for 
the  Government  of  the  Union  to  have  some  place  for  legislating  for 
them  all,  where  everything  that  related  to  their  general  welfare 
could  be  considered.  It  seemed  to  be  a settled  point  in  forming  the 
more  perfect  Union  that  a Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the 
state  of  the  Union  was  the  proper  place  for  determining  in  free 
discussion  principles  or  policies  before  they  were  sent  elsewhere 
to  be  embodied  in  bills  or  resolutions  under  strict  rules  of  debate 
for  final  enactment  into  law. 

Hence,  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the 
Union  was  a necessary  and  natural  growth  out  of  the  old  Corn- 
3608 


5 


mittee  of  the  States  Assembled  under  the  Confederation.  The  title 
of  the  old  acts  und-  r the  Articles  of  Confederation  was:  "We,  the 
United  States,  in  committee  assembled/’  Then,  from  it,  under 
the  new  Constitution,  was  adopted  the  title  which  we  now  use: 
“ Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled.” 

The  first  messages  by  the  Presidents  were  speeches,  not  written 
messages  in  the  form  in  which  we  now  receive  them.  A time 
was  fixed  when  the  President  would  appear  in  the  Senate  Cham- 
ber and  deliver  his  speech,  in  imitation  of  the  practice  of  the 
British  Government  of  a speech  from  the  throne  at  the  opening  of 
Parliament.  The  two  Houses  assembled  ,n  the  Senate  Chamber, 
the  speech  was  delivered:  and  the  first  speech  of  George  Wash- 
ington was  delivered  on  the  30th  of  April.  1789.  On  the  1st  day  of 
May  the  Speaker  laid  before  the  House  ‘ ‘ a copy  of  the  speech  de- 
livered by  the  President  yesterday  in  the  Senate  Chamber.” 

That  speech  was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House, 
because  all  that  was  necessary  was  to  prepare  an  address  in  reply 
to  it,  and  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  was  the  place  for  perfecting 
all  acts  of  the  House.  The  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state 
of  the  Union  was  where  they  initiated  legislation,  everyone  amend- 
ing and  changing  and  talking  and  discussing  and  giving  his  views. 
Whatever  resolution  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the 
state  of  the  Union  reported,  a committee,  if  one  was  necessary, 
was  ordered  in  the  House  to  prepare  bills  to  carry  out  the  object 
of  the  resolution,  and  these  bills,  when  reported  by  the  committee, 
were  then  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  there  every 
member  must  speak  to  the  subject  under  consideration. 

No  place  was  left  in  the  early  rules  any  more  than  now  in  which 
general  debate  was  allowed  except  in  this  Committee  of  the  Whole 
House  on  the  state  of  the  Union.  The  first  speech  of  the  President, 
therefore,  was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  a com- 
mittee was  appointed  before  the  House  went  into  that  committee  to 
prepare  an  address  in  reply  to  the  speech  of  the  President.  Madison 
was  at  the  head  of  it.  When  that  committee  had  prepared  their 
address  and  reported  it  to  the  House,  the  House  referred  it  to  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  after  perfecting  it  reported  it  back, 
and  the  House  could  then  amend  if  they  chose  to,  but  if  not,  then 
it  stood  as  the  address  in  reply  to  the  President's  speech  delivered 
in  the  Senate  Chamber. 

Under  the  old  parliamentary  law  of  our  ancestors,  the  Speaker 
of  Parliament  delivered  the  address  in  reply  to  the  speech  from 
the  Throne,  but  it  was  the  speech  of  the  House — it  was  the  speech 
of  Parliament.  So  our  fathers  adopted  this  old  custom:  and  while 
the  Speaker  had  nothing  to  do  with  preparing  the  address,  he 
must  deliver  it.  The  House  accompanied  him  to  the  Executive 
at  a time  fixed  to  suit  his  convenience,  and  the  Speaker  delivered 
the  address  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  in  reply  to  the  speech 
of  the  President,  to  both  Houses  assembled  in  the  Senate  Chamber. 
In  Parliament  the  Speaker  delivered  the  address  of  the  House  of 
Commons  in  reply  to  the  address  from  the  Throne.  And  the 
reason  why  the  only  member  of  Parliament  that  did  not  speak  at 
all  was  called  the  Speaker  was  because  he  must  deliver  the  reply 
of  the  House  of  Commons  to  the  address  from  the  Throne. 

Following  the  practice  of  the  British  Parliament  in  the  organ- 
ization of  the  American  Congress,  its  presiding  officer  was  called 
Speaker  because  he  was  to  speak  the  speech  of  the  House  in  reply 
3608 


6 


to  the  speech  of  the  President,  accompanied  by  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives and  which  had  been  previously  prepared  by  the  House 
in  one  of  its  special  committees.  That  continued  until  1801,  when 
Mr.  Jefferson  sent  a note  with  his  first  annual  message,  referring 
to  the  inconvenience  of  this  method  of  the  Executive  communicat- 
ing with  Congress,  and  suggested  that  it  be  by  written  message, 
which  he  sent  to  Congress.  That  note  accompanying  his  message 
and  the  message  itself  were  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the  Union.  That  was  the  last  action 
taken  upon  it  by  the  House. 

And  the  formula  has  continued — the  President  communicates 
to  the  House  a message  in  writing.  From  that  time  all  the 
messages  of  the  Presidents  have  been  referred  to  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the  Union;  and  as  it  would 
he  the  first  thing  done  by  Congress  it  would  stand  at  the  head 
of  the  Calendar,  and  would  he  good  reason,  and  consistent  with 
all  parliamentary  law  that  any  member  might  discuss  in  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the  Union  any  sub- 
ject, because  the  President’s  message  related  to  any  subject  that 
any  member  would  probably  desire  to  talk  about.  But  whether 
he  did  or  not.  the  committee  itself  was  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
House  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  and  in  it  anything  pertaining  to 
the  people  of  any  of  the  States,  or  the  relation  of  any  State  to  the 
General  Government,  or  this  Government  to  any  other,  was  a 
proper  subject  of  debate  and  would  be  in  order  in  that  committee. 

But  the  President's  message  was  a double  reason.  That  prac- 
tice has  continued  down  to  the  present  time;  and  if  I understand 
aright,  with  the  exception  of  one  Congress,  it  has  been  referred  to 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the  Union;  and 
in  that  Congress  occurred  the  innovation  of  having  it  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means.  Then  the  Committee  on 
Ways  and  Means  reported  with  resolutions  of  distribution,  and 
had  it  referred,  and  it  passed  away  from  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the  Union.  But  that  would  not 
change  the  object  of  the  origin  of  this  committee;  and  members 
should  understand  fully  that  there  is  a place  under  the  rules  of 
the  House  that  allows  just  as  unlimited  debate  as  that  which 
exists  in  the  Senate.  Gentlemen  think  they  are  confined  and 
cramped  here.  They  have  in  this  committee  the  same  unlimited 
debate,  except  as  to  the  time  of  each  speaker. 

There  never  was  any  rule  limiting  the  time  of  debate  of  mem- 
bers in  the  House  until  about  1840, 1 think,  or  thereabouts.  Later, 
the  five-minute  rule  was  adopted.  The  rule  was  the  same  as  now, 
that  after  general  debate  closed  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  House 
on  the  state  of  the  Union  upon  any  question,  the  five  minutes'  dis- 
cussion could  be  had  upon  any  amendment,  and  no  bill  could  be 
reported  from  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the  state  of 
the  Union  so  long  as  a member  had  an  amendment  he  proposed  to 
offer. 

But  under  the  old  practice  (and  the  rule  is  not  changed)  he 
offered  an  amendment  and  was  allowed  five  minutes  to  advocate 
it,  and  one  speech  of  five  minutes  in  opposition  was  allowed,  and 
then  it  was  the  duty  of  the  Chair  to  put  the  question  on  that 
amendment.  Then  you  could  not  move  to  strike  out  the  last  word 
and  talk  on  anything  else,  which  is  an  innovation  that  prevents 
the  perfecting  of  legislation.  The  five-minute  rule,  if  enforced, 
would  make  sure  that  every  bill  should  be  read  through  in  the 
3608 


7 


Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  and  so 
long  as  anybody  proposed  an  amendment  it  could  not  be  reported 
to  the  House;  if  the  majority  of  the  committee  was  opposed  to  the 
bill  it  could  strike  out  the  enacting  clause;  and  if  the  committee 
did  that,  and  the  House  did  not  agree  in  it,  under  the  old  practice 
the  bill  immediately  went  back  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
House  on  the  state  of  the  Union. 

So  if  this  rule,  which  is  the  same  as  it  always  has  been,  were 
strictly  enforced  and  lived  up  to,  there  could  no  bill  pass  the  House 
any  more  than  it  does  the  Senate  without  being  read  through  from 
the  beginning  and  any  and  every  member  having  an  opportunity  to 
offer  his  amendment  if  he  desired  to.  In  Committee  of  the  Whole 
House  on  the  state  of  the  Union  the  old  formula  in  reporting 
from  that  committee  was:  ••The  committee  has  had,  according  to 
order,  the  Union  generally  under  consideration  and  particularly  ” 
a bill  (naming  the  number  and  title).  I think  the  old  formula 
should  be  continued — it  means  something— instead  of  reporting 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the  Union  has 
had  under  consideration  a particular  bill,  omitting  “have  under 
consideration  the  Union  generally,'’  which  is  the  highest  object  of 
the  committee,  the  old  formula  required  it  to  be  stated  every  time 
the  report  was  made  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the  Union. 

In  the  last  session,  it  will  be  remembered,  we  had  little  asperi- 
ties sometimes  when  gentlemen  were  addressing  themselves  to 
subjects  not  before  the  House,  and  the  rule  was  attempted  to  be 
enforced  strictly,  and  requiring  them  to  confine  their  remarks  to 
the  subject  before  the  House,  which  is  a rule  that  has  always 
been  and  always  must  be  enforced  if  the  House  is  to  proceed 
orderly  and  discharge  the  business  in  the  House  expeditiously. 

That  could  not  be  done  if  there  was  unrestricted  debate  in  the 
House.  The  subject  before  the  House  must  be  considered.  The 
Senate,  in  its  unlimited  debate,  almost,  has  generally  the  subject 
before  the  Senate  that  the  Senator  speaks  on,  or  any  Senator  can 
call  him  to  order  as  not  speaking  on  the  subject;  and  if  in  no  other 
way,  he  offers  a resolution  on  the  subject  he  wishes  to  speak  on, 
which  brings  him  under  the  old  parliamentary  law.  In  the  House, 
when  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the 
Union,  we  have  the  same  unrestricted  debate,  with  the  exception 
of  the  limit  of  time  to  one  hour.  No  resolution  need  be  offered. 
General  debate  can  proceed  on  any  question  unlimited  except  as 
to  the  time  limit  on  the  individual. 

So  no  injustice  by  the  rules  is  done  to  any  member.  If  the  rule 
were  strictly  enforced  in  the  House  that  all  debate  must  be  con- 
fined to  the  subject  before  the  House  and  in  committee,  after  gen- 
eral debate  is  closed,  all  discussion  under  the  five- minute  rule  must 
be  confined  strictly  to  the  amendment  offered,  there  could  be  only 
one  speech  for  and  one  speech  against,  and  then  the  vote  must  be 
taken  before  allowing  another  amendment  to  be  offered.  Every 
member  would  have  full  opportunity  to  offer  any  amendment  to 
any  bill  and  have  it  voted  upon. 

But  under  our  practice,  with  the  five-minute  discussion,  it 
amounts  to  nothing  in  perfecting  legislation.  Gentlemen  take 
that  occasion  to  talk  upon  all  subjects,  move  to  strike  out  the  last 
word  and  speak  on  anything  else.  Under  the  old  rule  the  Chair- 
man would  hold  him  to  show  the  reason  why  the  last  word  should 
be  stricken  out,  and  he  could  not  talk  upon  anything  else.  If  we 
3608 


8 


had  that  rule  enforced  to-day,  every  bill  would  have  to  be  read 
through  by  clauses  and  every  member  would  have  the  right  to 
speak  five  minutes  on  any  amendment  he  might  offer. 

In  every  other  case,  except  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
House  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  the  debate  should  be  confined 
strictly  to  the  subject  under  consideration  in  order  to  hasten  and 
facilitate  legislation,  and  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the 
state  of  the  Union  is  the  place  for  general  discussion.  All  ques- 
tions that  members  desire,  either  for  their  local  community  or  for 
the  greater  community,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  is  there 
open  and  free  to  discussion  by  any  member.  In  that  committee 
all  of  the  discussions  of  fifty  years  on  the  question  of  slavery  in 
this  country,  its  relation  to  the  State,  to  the  Union,  -whether  an 
economic  institution  or  not,  all  the  grave  questions  affecting  the 
States  and  their  relation  to  the  Union,  and  the  question  of  the  dis- 
position of  the  public  lands,  took  place. 

That  was  the  onty  place  you  could  be  heard  on  these  grave 
questions  in  most  cases,  for  in  most  cases  there  would  be  nothing 
pertaining  to  the  question  that  would  allow  general  discussion. 
Day  after  day  the  first  motion  after  reading  the  Journal  was  to 
go  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the  Union, 
with  the  understanding  by  everybody  that  it  was  for  general 
debate— general  talk  on  anything  that  a member  desired  to  talk 
on,  and  the  first  man  that  obtained  the  floor  was  entitled  to  be 
heard. 

Sir,  it  was  only  in  that  way  that  the  little  baud  of  free-soilers  in 
early  days  could  be  beard.  There  was  no  favoritism  given  to 
their  views:  extreme  abolitionists  in  the  North  could  be  heard  on 
this  floor;  all  the  powers  that  controlled  it  then  did  not  favor 
their  opinion.  The  free-soil  element  of  the  great  North  would 
have  been  silent  unless  the  rule  prevailed  somewhere  that  they 
could  be  heard  on  their  views  upon  this  great  institution  that 
affected  more  vitaly  the  welfare  of  the  Republic  than  any  insti- 
tution that  ever  existed  on  American  soil  or  ever  wil  1 exist. 

But,  Mr.  Speaker,  I had  no  idea  of  making  any  speech  on  bygone 
questions.  It  was  simply  in  compliance  with  the  request  of  many 
members  of  the  House,  after  that  little  discussion  at  the  last  ses- 
sion, that  I promised  that  I would  avail  myself  of  some  opportu- 
nity to  explain  more  fully  the  reason  why  this  general  debate  ex- 
isted in  one  committee  of  the  House  and  did  not  exist  anywhere 
else.  I did  not  see  any  good  opportunity  to  trespass  upon  the  time 
of  the  House  in  the  last  session,  and  I would  not  now  only  there 
seems  to  be  a little  lull  in  the  business,  nothing  requiring  imme- 
diate action.  I thank  the  House  for  its  attention  and  courtesy. 
[Applause.] 

3608 


O 


If  any  one  attempts  to  haul  down  the  American  flag,  shoot  him  on  the  spot. 

— General  Dix,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  1861. 


REMARKS 


OF 


HON.  GALUSHA  A.  GROW, 

OF  PENNSYLVANIA, 


IN  THE 


HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 


JANUARY  27,  1899. 


WASHINGTON, 

1899. 


REMARKS 

OF 

HON.  GALUSHA  A.  GROW. 


The  House  being  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  and 
having  under  consideration  the  bill  (H.  R.  11032)  for  the_reorganization  of  the 
Army  of  the  United  States,  and  for  other  purposes — 

Mr.  GROW  said: 

Mr.  Chairman:  When  Thomas  Jefferson  was  inaugurated  Presi- 
dent, the  area  of  territory  of  the  United  States  of  America  was  less 
than  900.000  square  miles.  The  population,  by  the  census  of  1800, 
was  a little  over  five  millions,  scattered  along  the  Atlantic  seaboard, 
hemmed  in  by  the  ocean  in  front,  the  wilderness  and  the  savage 
in  the  rear. 

In  1S50  the  territorial  area  of  the  United  States  was  a little  over 
3,000,000  square  miles  and  its  population  23,000,000.  When  the 
declaration  of  war  against  Spain  passed  Congress,  the  territorial 
area  of  the  United  States  was  3.600,000  square  miles,  and  the  popu- 
lation was  about  75.000,000.  In  our  past  history  the  population 
has  doubled  in  numbers  every  thirty  years.  This  vast  acquisition 
of  territory  began  in  1803,  not  by  the  expectation  or  solicitation,  in 
the  first  place,  of  the  American  people.  The  acquisition  of  Louisi- 
ana came  to  us  not  because  of  our  solicitation.  Jefferson  in 
structed  our  ministers  to  France  and  Spain  to  procure,  if  possible, 
a landing  place  at  what  is  now  New  Orleans  for  goods  for  reship- 
ment without  the  payment  of  duty,  and  the  free  navigation  of  the 
Mississippi  River.  They  were  authorized  to  pay  for  these  privi- 
leges §2,000,000.  if  they  could  not  be  procured  for  a less  sum.  But 
Napoleon,  as  if  marking  out  for  us  the  manifest  destiny  of  the 
great  Republic,  instructed  his  secretary  of  treasury  to  cede  to  the 
United  States  all  the  territory  received  from  Spain  from  the  mouth 
of  the  river  to  its  source,  including  both  banks,  for  a fixed  com- 
pensation. 

Our  commissioners,  Mr.  Livingston  and  Mr.  Monroe,  were  sur- 
prised at  this  proposition,  but  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  sailing  ves- 
sels, with  no  means  of  communicating  with  their  Government  at 
home  in  reasonable  time,  they  agreed  if  France  should  make 
this  cession  of  territory — double  that  of  the  old  original  thirteen 
States — we  should  pay  France  $15,000,000.  This  country  has  never 
yet  taken  a foot  of  soil  as  a conquest  of  war  alone.  All  of  its  acquisi- 
tions have  been  made  on  the  payment  of  money.  Even  when  our 
flag  floated  over  the  halls  of  the  Montezumas,  we  paid  Mexico 
$15,000,000  for  the  territory  acquired  at  the  close  of  that  war. 
With  the  exception  of  the  Floridas,  Alaska,  and  the  Gadsden  pur- 
chase, all  the  acquisitions  of  territory  to  the  United  States  have 
come,  as  I said  before,  unexpected  and  unsolicited  on  our  part  in 
the  first  place. 

With  the  declaration  of  war  with  Spain  our  Army  and  Navy 
went  forth  to  conquer  the  power  of  Spain  in  the  island  of  Cuba 
because  it  was  our  neighbor,  and  in  behalf  of  liberty  and  human- 
3685  3 


4 


ity.  They  went  forth  in  a great  crusade  tor  the  rights  of  a com- 
mon humanity.  But  within  a week  ten  millions  of  the  colonists 
of  Spain,  in  far-off  Asia,  were  placed  under  the  American  flag, 
and  that  people  relieved  from  the  cruel  despotism  of  Spain  that 
they  and  their  fathers  had  groaned  under  for  three  centuries. 

To-day  our  flag  rightfully  floats  over  an  island  in  the  Atlantic 
Ocean,  a thousand  miles  from  our  eastern  shore.  In  the  same 
manner  it  floats  over  a larger  island  in  the  Pacific,  in  far-off  Asia, 
10,000  miles  away.  The  last  rays  of  parting  day  scarcely  fades 
from  the  hillsides  of  Porto  Rico  before  the  morning  sun  gilds  the 
spires  of  Manila  and  the  mountain  tops  of  Luzon.  What  disposi- 
tion shall  be  made  as  to  the  people  in  this  vast  expanse  of  terri- 
tory over  which  our  flag  floats  to-day  rests  with  the  American 
Congress. 

What  kind  of  government  shall  be  established  will  depend  on 
the  calm,  deliberate  judgment  of  Congress  on  that  question  when 
the  treaty  of  peace  with  Spain  is  ratified.  Under  that  treaty  it  is 
agreed  that  Spain  shall  withdraw  her  sovereignty  from  the  Philip- 
pine Islands  and  we  send  her  soldiers  home.  On  the  10th  of  De- 
cember, 1898,  the  time  of  the  agreement  on  a treaty  of  peace,  one 
volume  of  the  world’s  history  was  closed  and  a new  one  opened. 
In  the  last  chapter  of  that  closed  volume  is  recorded  that  the  sov- 
ereignty and  the  flag  of  Spain  have  been  withdrawn  forever  from 
the  American  continent,  a flag  that  at  one  time  floated  over  a 
larger  portion  of  the  American  hemisphere  than  that  of  any  other 
one  nation. 

What  shall  be  recorded  in  the  new  volume  on  American  history 
depends  upon  the  action  of  the  American  people;  and  when  the 
treaty  is  ratified  the  duty  and  responsibility  of  Congress  will  not 
be  how  they  can  shirk  the  duties  and  responsibilities  thrown  upon 
them  by  the  fortunes  of  war.  It  will  then  become  a question  of 
how  can  the  American  people  best  discharge  their  responsibility 
to  liberty  and  the  common  rights  of  humanity;  for  it  was  for  that 
the  sword  was  unsheathed  and  Spain  was  required  to  withdraw 
her  sovereignty  from  this  continent.  Any  nation  in  this  age  of 
Christian  civilization  that  appeals  to  war  to  settle  any  question 
must  be  willing  and  ought  to  be  ready  to  discharge  all  its  respon- 
sibilities to  liberty  and  humanity  cast  upon  it  by  the  fortunes  of 
war,  whether  foreseen  or  not. 

Now,  it  seems  to  be  agreed  on  all  sides  that  there  shall  be  an  in- 
crease in  the  Regular  Army,  whether  it  be  a few  thousand  more 
or  less  is  of  little  consequence.  The  flag  of  our  country  wherever 
it  is  rightfully  planted  can  not  be  removed  with  honor  to  the  Ameri- 
can people  by  any  power  except  that  which  planted  it,  and  so  long 
as  patriotism  dwells  in  the  American  heart  and  it  is  loyal  to  the 
glorious  traditions  of  a heroic  ancestry,  over  whatever  portion  of 
the  earth's  surface  it  may  rightfully  float  it  will  never  be  lowered 
except  by  the  same  power  that  raised  it.  [Applause.  ] 

We  have  to  determine  what  is  to  be  done  with  these  new  acquisi- 
tions of  territory,  what  government  shall  be  established,  and  to  de- 
termine these  questions  in  view  of  the  rights  and  happiness  of  the 
American  people  and  the  rights  and  happiness  of  the  people  that 
dwell  in  the  new  acquisitions.  Whatever  disposition  shall  be 
made  and  what  kind  of  government  is  to  be  established,  the 
same  rule  applies  to  the  Philippines  that  applies  to  Porto  Rico. 
The  flag  was  planted  in  both  by  the  power  of  the  American  na- 
tion, and  must  stay  where  it  was  thus  planted  until  the  American 
nation  withdraws  it.  [Loud  applause  on  the  Republican  side.] 
3685 


O 


EULOGY  ON  JUSTIN  S.  MORRILL. 


ADDRESS 


HON.  GALUSHA  A.  GROW, 

OF  PENNSYLVANIA, 


IN  THE 


HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 


FEBRUARY  22,  1899. 


WASHINGTON. 

I899. 


EULOGY  ON  JUSTIN  S.  MORRILL. 


Mr.  GROW.  Mr.  Speaker,  in  December,  1855,  Justin  S.  Mor- 
rill took  his  seat  in  the  old  Hall,  a Representative  in  Congress 
from  the  State  of  Vermont.  The  two  great  political  party  divi- 
sions of  the  American  people  were  then  Whig  and  Democratic. 
Mr.  Morrill  took  his  seat  on  the  Whig  side  of  the  House.  For 
four  years  preceding  I had  occupied  a seat  on  the  Democratic 
side.  ' But  during  the  eight  weeks’  contest  for  the  election  of 
Speaker,  we  both  voted  for  Nathaniel  P.  Banks.  From  that  time 
to  his  death  we  were  coworkers  in  the  Republican  party,  with  a 
personal  friendship  devoted  and  sincere  and  never  in  the  least 
degree  impaired. 

I come  now  to  lay  an  offering  of  affectionate  sorrow  upon  his 
new-made  grave,  with  a sadness  such  as  falls  upon  the  heart  when 
a lifelong  friend  whispers  that  last  earthly  farewell  as  the  spir- 
it's frail  bark  puts  off  into  the  unknown  dark,  but  with  an  abid- 
ing consciousness  and  unwavering  faith  that  we  shall  meet  again. 
For  the  world's  Redeemer,  in  His  teachings  on  the  seashore  and 
along  the  hillsides  of  Judea,  bade  the  desponding  of  earth's  pil- 
grims take  courage,  for  the  grave  is  not  the  end  of  man. 

Mr.  Morrill’s  life  was  cotemporaneous  with  that  of  all  the 
Presidents  except  Washington.  The  death  of  both  Jefferson  and 
John  Adams,  the  first  after  that  of  the  “ Father  of  his  Country.” 
was  on  the  4th  day  of  July,  1826.  At  that  time  Mr.  Morrill  was 
16  years  old,  just  entering  upon  the  threshold  of  young  manhood. 

Our  history  since  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  in  1789  can 
be  divided  into  three  important  epochs  or  periods  of  about  one- 
third  of  a century  each,  marking  the  formation  and  distinctive 
action  of  political  parties,  into  which  the  American  people  have 
been  divided  during  this  hundred  years.  Each  of  these  periods  or 
epochs  had  its  distinctive  political  agitation  on  grave  questions 
of  national  welfare.  The  first  of  these  periods  ended  in  1824  with 
four  Presidential  candidates  and  with  the  disintegration  of  the  old 
political  parties,  known  as  Federal  and  Republican,  and  the  for- 
mation of  new  ones,  which  finally  took  shape  under  the  party 
name  of  Whig  and  Democratic,  continuing  thus  until  the  repeal 
of  the  Missouri  compromise  in  1854.  Since  that  time  the  two  con- 
trolling political  party  divisions  have  been  known  as  Republican 
and  Democratic. 

In  each  of  these  epochs  or  periods  the  country  was  engaged  in 
war.  In  the  first,  from  1812  to  1816,  was  the  second  war  of  Ameri- 
can independence  with  the  ‘-proud  mistress  of  the  seas,”  resulting 
in  the  establishment  forever  of  the  inviolability  of  American  citi- 
zenship by  any  foreign  power.  In  the  second  period  was  the  war 
with  Mexico,  resulting  in  a vast  expansion  of  our  territorial  area, 
reaching  from  ocean  to  ocean.  In  the  last  of  these  three  periods 
is  the  war  with  Spain,  which  marks  a new  era  in  the  history  of 
the  nations. 

In  each  of  these  periods  or  epochs,  in  addition  to  its  war,  great 
political  questions  have  agitated  the  nublic  mind  on  the  hustings 
3795  3 


4 


ancl  in  the  forum,  all  of  which  have  been  comparatively  settled 
except  those  in  this  last  epoch,  now  just  ended. 

In  the  first  was  the  question  of  the  fundamental  principles  of 
the  more  perfect  Union  formed  by  our  fathers,  represented  on 
one  side  by  Thomas  Jefferson  and  James  Madison,  on  the  other 
by  John  Adams,  Alexander  Hamilton,  and  John  Marshall.  In 
the  second  was  the  financial  policy  to  be  finally  established  in  the 
Government  and  the  constitutional  limits  of  legislation  between 
the  government  of  the  Union  and  that  of  the  States.  In  the 
third,  more  intense  and  excitable  than  all  others,  was  the  ques- 
tion of  the  constitutional  limits  and  restrictions  on  the  expan- 
sion of  slave-labor  institutions,  which  finally  culminated  in  the 
mightiest  conflict  of  arms  in  the  history  of  the  race,  ending  with 
an  indivisible  Union  and  a country  without  a slave. 

Mr.  Morrill's  life  began  in  the  first  of  these  three  epochs  or  . 
periods  of  national  existence  and  ended  with  the  third.  His  serv- 
ice in  both  the  House  and  the  Senate  was  a little  over  forty-three 
years,  exceeding  by  six  years  that  of  any  other  person  in  continu- 
ous service.  In  the  last  two  it  can  be  said  of  him  what  Hlneas 
said  of  himself  in  describing  to  Queen  Dido  the  trials  and  the  great 
deeds  at  the  siege  and  fall  of  Troy,  “quorum  pars  magna  fui”— 
of  which  I was  no  insignificant  part.  In  the  legislation  and  the 
events  of  our  country’s  history  in  these  last  two  epochs  of  over 
fifty  years  Mr.  Morrill  has  been  a conspicuous  figure.  By  his 
untiring  industry  and  unselfish  devotion  to  the  best  interests  of 
his  country  he  impressed  himself  upon  this  great  historic  period 
and  has  linked  his  name  inseparably  to  most  of  its  useful  and  en- 
during legislation. 

His  private  worth,  his  amiable  traits  of  character,  and  his  pub- 
lic services  have  been  specifically  so  faithfully  portrayed  that  no 
additional  words  of  mine  are  needed.  Whoever  by  heroic  or  great 
beneficent  acts  stamps  his  character  upon  the  pillars  of  the  age 
in  which  he  lives  can  never  die.  Though  wrapped  in  the  shroud, 
he  will  live  in  the  affections  of  the  present  and  the  gratitude  of 
coming  time. 

It  can  be  truly  said  of  Mr.  Morrill,  what  is  the  highest  possi- 
ble praise  that  can  be  bestowed  on  individual  statesmanship,  “He 
never  gave  to  party  what  belonged  to  his  country.  ” 

The  battle  of  our  life  is  brief — 

The  alarm,  the  struggle,  the  relief — 

Then  sleep  we  side  by  side. 

But  in  that  brief  battle  man  is  permitted  by  a kind  Providence 
to  perform  deeds  of  greatness— deeds  that  live  long  after  the  mar- 
ble crumbles  and  the  brass  fades. 

The  State  of  Vermont,  with  fitting  and  well-becoming  pride, 
can  engrave  the  name  of  Justin  S.  Morrill  on  the  mountain 
sides  of  its  polished  marble  and  enduring  granite,  in  her  long  list 
of  distinguished  citizens  who,  by  their  eminent  services  to  their 
country,  have  made  their  names  immortal. 

3795 


O 


THE  TWENTY  MILLIONS  TO  BE  PAID  TO  SPAIN  UNDER  THE  TREATY 
NOT  PURCHASE  MONEY  FOR  THE  PHILIPPINES. 


SPEECH 


OF 


HON.  GALUSHA  A.  GROW, 

OF  PENNSYLVANIA, 


IN  THE 


HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 


MARCH  1,  1899. 


washimgton, 

1899. 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON.  GALUSHA  A.  GROW. 


The  House  having  under  consideration  the  hill  (H.  R.  12203)  making  ap- 
propriations to  supply  deficiencies  in  the  appropriations  for  the  fiscal  year 
ending  June  30,  1899,  and  for  prior  years,  and  for  other  purposes — 

Mr.  GROW  said: 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  has  been  alleged,  and  the  idea  exists  in  the 
pnblic  mind,  that  the  §20,000,000  which  was  to  he  paid  to  Spain 
under  the  treaty  was  purchase  money  for  the  Philippine  Islands. 
I have  taken  a little  pains  and  some  trouble  to  get  together  the 
facts  in  consecutive  order  by  dates  relative  to  the  negotiations 
pending  between  the  American  and  Spanish  commissioners,  from 
the  beginning  to  the  close  of  their  negotiations,  which  will  show 
that  this  §20,000.000  was  not  paid  for  the  Philippine  Islands  at  all, 
but  it  was  paid  in  closing  the  negotiations  that  began  in  a discus- 
sion as  to  how  much  of  the  debt  of  Cuba,  amounting  to  some 
§500,000,000.  should  be  assumed  by  the  United  States  or  by  the 
island  of  Cuba  when  it  should  form  a government  of  its  own. 

At  the  time  of  offering  the  §20,000,000  by  the  American  com- 
missioners not  an  article  of  the  treaty  had  been  agreed  to.  The 
various  propositions  had  been  discussed  and  assented  to  condition- 
ally, dependent  on  a final  agreement  as  to  the  whole  treaty.  The 
negotiations  had  reached  a point  at  the  time  of  this  offer  where 
there  was  serious  doubt  whether  any  treaty  would  be  signed  by 
both  commissions.  That  this  was  the  case  i quote  the  following 
from  a speech  of  Senator  Gray,  one  of  the  American  commis- 
sioners. made  by  him  in  New  York  at  the  banquet  of  the  Ohio 
society  February  25,  1S99: 

There  came  a time  iu  the  course  of  those  negotiations — and  this,  perhaps, 
is  one  of  the  secrets  to  which  your  president  alluded — when,  after  four  or 
five  weeks  of  doubt  and  anxiety,  it  became  apparent  that  these  negotiations 
must  either  be  broken  off  and  your  commissioners  return  without  a 
treaty  at  all.  and  that  we  would  be  'relegated  to  the  necessity  of  taking  not 
only  the  Philippines,  but  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico,  by  the  ruthless  hand  of  mili- 
tary conquest,  or,  by  some  concessions  that  comported  with  the  magnanim- 
ity and  greatness  and  character  of  this  country,  gain  them  by  the  voluntary 
cession  of  a treaty  of  peace.  * 

It  was  at  such  a time  the  offer  was  made  as  a final  settlement  of 
all  the  questions  in  dispute. 

The  payment  of  §20.000,000  to  Spain  provided  for  in  the  treaty 
was  not,  therefore,  purchase  money  for  the  Philippine  Islands.  A 
careful  examination  of  the  negotiation  on  the  several  articles  of 
the  treaty  shows  conclusively  that  the  §20,000.000  was  finally 
agreed  on  to  cover  all  the  points  of  difference  between  the  Amer- 
ican and  Spanish  commissioners  on  all  the  articles  of  the  treaty, 
none  of  which  was  finally  concluded  until  the  adoption  of  the  last 
article. 

The  most  strenuous  contention  of  the  Spanish  commissioners 
from  first  to  last  was  the  liability  of  the  United  States  for  the  pay- 
ment of  the  debts  of  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico.  The  withdrawal  of 
3777  3 


4 


Spanish  sovereignty  over  Cuba,  the  cession  of  Poito  Rico  and  the 
Spanish  islands  in  the  West  Indies,  and  the  cession  of  the  island 
of  Guam  in  the  Ladrones,  and  the  withdrawal  of  Spanish  sov- 
ereignty from  the  Philippines,  all  these  questions  were  left  un- 
determined until  the  final  agreement  on  the  payment  of  the 
$20,000,000. 

I call  the  attention  of  the  House  especially  to  the  facts  in  the 
negotiations  on  the  several  articles  of  the  treaty,  which  I will  pre- 
sent from  the  official  record  of  the  negotiation  published  in  Senate 
Document  No.  62,  part  1,  of  the  third  session  of  the  Fifty-fifth 
Congress  [the  italics  in  all  the  extracts  are  my  own] : 

The  protocol  signed  August  12.  1898,  was  the  basis  of  the  treaty 
of  peace.  Article  III  of  the  protocol  was  the  only  one  over  which 
there  was  any  considerable  discussion  as  to  its  specific  meaning. 
Its  wording  is— 

The  United  States  will  occupy  and  hold  the  city,  bay,  and  harbor  of  Manila 
pending  the  conclusion  of  a treaty  of  peace;  which  shall  determine  the  control , 
disposition , and  government  of  the  Philippines. 

October  1,  1898.  The  peace  commissioners  met  at  Paris.  The 
subject  of  the  first  conference  was  the  status  quo  in  the  Philip- 
pines. This  question  was  passed  over  with  the  right  to  bring  up 
the  subject  hereafter.  Without  consuming  time  in  remarks  of 
my  own,  I will  ask  consent  to  extend  them  after  the  House  has 
heard  read  certain  extracts  from  the  discussions  on  the  proposi- 
tions that  were  finally  agreed  upon  between  the  American  and 
Spanish  commissioners,  which  will  be  more  interesting  to  the 
House  and  give  members  more  information,  which  I am  anxious 
they  should  have,  than  any  remarks  that  I can  make. 

From  October  7 to  October  26  the  commission  was  engaged  in 
discussions  on  the  debt  of  Cuba,  amounting  to  about  $500,000,000, 
and  the  cession  by  Spain  of  her  sovereignty  over  the  island;  and 
the  cession  of  Porto  Rico  and  the  Spanish  islands  in  the  West 
Indies,  which  ended  temporarily  with  the  following  language; 

The  American  commissioners  deem  it  unnecessary,  after  what  has  been 
stated,  to  enter  into  an  examination  of  the  general  references,  made  in  the 
Spanish  memorandum,  to  cases  in  which  debts  contracted  by  a state  have, 
upon  its  absorption,  been  assumed  by  the  absorbing  state,  or  to  cases  in 
which,  upon  the  partition  of  territory,  debts  contracted  by  the  whole  have 
been  by  special  arrangement  apportioned.  They  are  conceived  to  be  inappli- 
cable, legally  and  morally,  to  the  so-called  “Cuban  debt,”  the  burden  of 
which,  imposed  upon  the  people  of  Cuba  without  their  consent  and  by  force 
of  arms,  was  one  of  the  principal  wrongs  for  the  termination  of  which  the 
struggles  for  Cuban  independence  were  undertaken.  (Executive  Document 
No.  b2,  part  1,  page  50.) 

At  the  conference  October  14, 1898,  the  following  suggestion  was 
made  by  the  Spanish  commissioners  and  agreed  to  by  the  Ameri- 
can commission: 

The  Spanish  commissioners  stated  that  before  proceeding  with  the  discus- 
sion of  the  questions  under  consideration  they  desired  it  to  be  understood 
that  if  certain  articles  should  be  agreed  to,  but  in  the  end  no  treaty  should  be 
signed,  the  articles  so  agreed  to  should  not  in  such  case  be  taken  as  expressing 
either  Government's  estimation  of  its  just  rights  in  respect  of  the  subjects  to 
which  the  articles  related.  (Senate  Executive  Document,  No.  b2,  part  1, 
page  45. ) 

October  14,  1898  (Senate  Executive  Document  No.  62,  part  1, 
page  59) : 

After  much  discussion,  the  president  of  the  Spanish  commission  stated 
that  the  Spanish  commissioners  did  not  care  for  the  phraseology  in  which 
the  relinquishment  of  sovereignty  was  expressed,  so  long  as  it  embraced  an 
obligation  as  to  debts,  such  as  was  stated  in  the  second  of  the  articles  pre- 
sented by  them. 

3777 


5 


The  president  of  the  American  commission,  replying  to  this  statement, 
inquired  whether  the  president  of  the  Spanish  commission  intended  thereby 
to  say  that  the  Spanish  commissioners  would  refuse  to  consider  any  articles 
as  to  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico  which  contained  no  provision  for  the  assumption 
of  indebtedness  by  the  United  States  or  Cuba,  or  both. 

October  26,  1898  (Senate  Executive  Document  No.  62,  part  1, 
pages  61  and  62) : 

The  Spanish  commissioners,  although  understanding  that  strict  law  de- 
cides the  question  of  the  Cuban  debt  in  their  favor,  are  in  duty  bound  and 
are  willing  to  moderate  the  said  strictness  in  view  of  the  advantages  which 
Spain  may  derive  from  other  stipulations  of  the  treaty  which,  without  being 
prejudicial  to  the  United  States,  may  be  favorable  to  Spain. 

Considering,  therefore,  that  the  article  or  articles  to  which  the  president  of 
the  American  commission  refers  can  not  at  this  time  be  the  subject  of  final 
approval,  since  they  must  remain  subject  to  the  others  to  be  included  in  the 
same  treaty,  meeting  the  approval  of  both  high  parties: 

“The  Spanish  commissioners  answer  the  said  question  by  stating  that,  re- 
iterating their  conviction  that  pursuant  to  law  the  colonial  obligations  of 
Cuba  and  Porto  Rico  must  follow  these  islands  and  their  sovereignty,  they 
do  not  refuse  ‘ to  consider  any  articles  as  to  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico  which  con- 
tain no  provision  for  the  assumption  of  indebtedness  by  the  United  States, 
or  Cuba,  or  both,’  subordinating  the  final  approval  of  such  articles  to  that  of 
the  others  which  are  to  form  the  complete  treaty,  and  they  therefore  invite 
the  American  commissioners  to  enter  upon  the  discussion  of  the  other  points 
to  be  embodied  in  the  treaty  and.  at  the  outset,  to  take  up  the  discussion  of 
the  Philippine  Archipelago,  and  to  propose  to  the  Spanish  commissioners 
what  they  understand  should  be  agreed  upon  in  said  treaty  with  respect  to 
this  subject.” 

The  American  commissioners,  after  the  reading  of  this  paper,  inquired 
whether  they  were  to  understand  that  the  Spanish  commissioners  accepted 
the  articles  previously  presented  by  them  as  to  Cuba,  Porto  Rico,  and  Guam. 

The  Spanish  commissioners  replied  that  they  accepted  them  in  the  sense 
stated  in  the  paper— provisionally,  subject  to  the  conclusion  of  a treaty  of 
peace. 

October  31,  1898  (Senate  Executive  Document  No.  62.  part  1, 
pages  108, 109): 

The  American  commissioners,  having  been  invited  by  the  Spanish  com- 
missioners at  the  last  conference  to  present  a proposition  in  regard  to  the 
Philippine  Islands,  beg  to  submit  the  following  article  on  that  subject: 

"Spain  hereby  cedes  to  the  United  States  the  archipelago  known  as  the 
Philippine  Islands  and  lying  within  the  following  line:  A line  running  along 
the  parallel  of  latitude  21°  30'  north  from  the  one  hundred  and  eighteenth  to  the 
one  hundred  and  twenty -seventh  degree  meridian  of  longitude  east  of  Green- 
wich, thence  along  the  one  hundred  and  twenty-seventh  degree  meridian 
of  longitude  east  of  Greenwich  to  the  parallel  of  4°  45'  north  latitude,  thence 
along  the  parallel  of  4°  45'  north  latitude  to  its  intersection  with  the  meridian 
of  longitude  119°  35'  east  of  Greenwich,  thence  along  the  meridian  of  longi- 
tude 119°  35'  east  of  Greenwich  to  the  parallel  of  latitude  7°  40'  north,  thence 
along  the  parallel  of  latitude  of  7°  40'  north  to  its  intersection  with  the  116th 
degree  meridian  of  longitude  east  of  Greenwich,  thence  by  a direct  line  to 
the  intersection  of  the  tenth  degree  parallel  of  north  latitude  with  the  one 
hundred  and  eighteenth  degree  meridian  of  longitude  east  of  Greenwich,  and 
thence  along  the  one  hundred  and  eighteenth  degree  meridian  of  longitude 
east  of  Greenwich  to  the  parallel  of  latitude  21°  30'  north." 

A proper  reference  to  the  cession  thus  proposed  may  be  inserted  in  the 
article  of  the  treaty  relating  to  public  property,  archives,  and  records  in  ter- 
ritory which  Spain  cedes  or  over  which  she  relinquishes  her  sovereignty. 

The  American  commissioners  beg  further  to  state  that  they  are  prepared 
to  insert  in  the  treaty  a stipulation  for  the  assumption  by  the  United  States 
of  any  existing  indebtedness  of  Spain  incurred  for  public  works  and  improve- 
ments of  a pacific  character  in  the  Philippines. 

November  4.  1898.  Proposition  of  the  American  Commission  to 
assume  the  indebtedness  of  the  Philippine  Islands  was  rejected  by 
the  Spanish  commission. 

November  23,  1898  (Senate  Executive  Document  No.  62,  part  1, 
pages  210.  211).  The  following  is  the  reply  of  the  American  com- 
missioners on  the  rejection  of  their  proposition: 

The  situation  that  has  arisen  in  the  Philippines  was  neither  foreseen  nor 
desired  by  the  United  States,  but,  since  it  exists,  that  Government  does  not 
shirk  the  responsibilities  growing  out  of  it;  and  the  American  commissioners 
3777 


6 


now  make  to  the  Spanish  commissioners,  in  the  light  of  those  responsibilities, 
a final  proposition. 

The  proposal  presented  by  the  American  commissioners  in  behalf  of  their 
Government  for  the  cession  of  the  Philippines  to  the  United  States  having 
been  rejected  by  the  Spanish  commissioners,  and  the  counter  proposal  of  the 
latter  for  the  withdrawal  of  the  American  forces  from  the  islands  and  the 
payment  of  an  indemnity  by  the  United  States  to  Spain  having  been  rejected 
by  the  American  commissioners,  the  American  commissioners,  deeming  it 
essential  that  the  present  negotiations,  which  have  already  been  greatly 
protracted,  should  be  brought  to  an  early  and  definite  conclusion,  beg  now 
to  present  a new  proposition  embodying  the  concessions  which  for  the  sake 
of  immediate  peace  their  Government  is  under  the  circumstances  willing  to 
tender. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  is  unable  to  modify  the  proposal 
heretofore  made  for  the  cession  of  the  entire  archipelago  of  the  Philippines , 
but  the  American  commissioners  are  authorized  to  offer  to  Spain,  in  case 
the  cession  should  be  agreed  to,  the  sum  of  $20,000,000,  to  be  paid  in  accord- 
ance with  the  terms  to  be  fixed  in  the  treaty  of  peace. 

And  it  being  the  policy  of  the  United  States  to  maintain  in  the  Philippines 
an  open  door  to  the  world's  commerce,  the  American  commissioners  are  pre- 
pared to  insert  in  the  treaty  now  in  contemplation  a stipulation  to  the  effect 
that,  for  a term  of  years,  Spanish  ships  and  merchandise  shall  be  admitted 
into  the  ports  of  the  Philippine  Islands  on  the  same  terms  as  American  ships 
and  merchandise. 

The  American  commissioners  are  also  authorized  and  prepared  to  insert 
in  the  treaty,  in  connection  with  the  cessions  of  territory  by  Spain  to  the 
United  States,  a provision  for  the  mutual  relinquishment  of  all  claims  for  in- 
demnity, national  and  individual,  of  every  kind,  of  the  United  States  against 
Spain  and  of  Spain  against  the  United  States  that  may  have  arisen  since  the 
beginning  of  the  late  insurrection  in  Cuba  and  prior  to  the  conclusion  of  a 
treaty  of  peace. 

The  American  commissioners  may  be  permitted  to  express  the  hope  that 
they  may  receive  from  the  Spanish  commissioners,  on  or  before  Monday  the 
28th  of  the  present  month,  a definite  and  final  acceptance  of  the  proposals 
herein  made  as  to  the  Philippine  Islands,  and  also  of  the  demands  as  to  Cuba, 
Porto  Rico,  and  other  Spanish  islands  in  the  West  Indies,  and  Guam,  in  the 
form  in  which  those  demands  have  been  provisionally  agreed. to. 

November  28, 1898,  the  Spanish  commissioners  reply  to  the  ulti- 
matum of  the  American  commissioners  in  the  following  language 
(Senate  Executive  Document  No.  62,  part  1,  page  213): 

Spain  having  on  her  part  exhausted  all  diplomatic  recourses  in  the  defense 
of  what  she  considers  her  rights  and  even  for  an  equitable  compromise,  the 
Spanish  commissioners  are  now  asked  to  accept  the  American  proposition  in 
its  entirety  and  without  further  discussion,  or  to  reject  it,  in  which  latter 
case,  as  the  American  commission  understands,  the  peace  negotiations  will 
end.  and  the  protocol  of  Washington  will  consequently  be  broken. 

The  Government  of  Her  Majesty,  moved  by  lofty  reasons  of  patriotism 
and  humanity,  will  not  assume  the  responsibility  of  again  bringing  upon 
Spain  all  the  horrors  of  war.  In  order  to  avoid  them  it  resigns  itself  to  the 
painful  strait  of  submitting  to  the  law  of  the  victor,  however  harsh  it  may 
be,  and  as  Spain  lacks  the  material  means  to  defend  the  rights  she  believes 
are  hers,  having  recorded  them,  she  accepts  the  only  terms  the  United  States 
offers  her  for  the  concluding  of  the  treaty  of  peace. 

The  stipulation  in  the  treaty  as  finally  adopted  relative  to  the 
inhabitants  of  the  islands  acquired  is  in  the  following  language, 
Article  IX  of  the  treaty: 

The  civil  rights  and  political  status  of  the  native  inhabitants  of  the  terri- 
tories hereby-  ceded  to  the  United  States  shall  be  determined  by  the  Congress. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  will  be  seen  by  these  extracts  from  the  official 
records  of  the  discussions  on  propositions  to  be  incorporated  as 
articles  in  the  treaty  of  peace  that  all  of  them  were  left  in  abey- 
ance until  the  treaty  should  be  finally  agreed  on:  and  the  final 
conclusion  of  the  treaty  was  the  proposition  on  the  part  of  the 
American  commissioners  to  pay  Spain  $20,000,000,  which  should 
cover  all  the  controversy  from  beginning  to  end  about  the  cession 
of  territory  or  the  debts  of  Cuba,  Porto  Rico,  or  the  Philippine 
Islands. 

Then  the  different  articles  that  have  been  passed  over  were 
agreed  to,  and  the  last  one  was  that  “ The  civil  rights  and  polit- 
3777 


7 


cal  status  of  the  native  inhabitants  of  the  territories  hereby  ceded 
to  the  United  States  shall  be  determined  by  the  Congress."  What 
their  civil  and  political  condition  shall  be  is  to  be  determined  by 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States.  The  territory  is  already  an- 
nexed. 

W e hear  a great  deal  about  forcible  annexation  of  the  Philip- 
pines. They  are  a part  of  American  territory  to  day,  whether 
Spain  ratifies  the  treaty  or  not.  Supposing  she  does  not,  which 
she  is  quite  likely  not  to  do,  in  accordance  with  her  whole  history 
in  reference  to  recognizing  the  independence  of  the  South  Amer- 
ican Republics,  she  can  refuse,  and  say  to  the  world,  “The 
United  States  in  its  great  power  robbed  Spain  of  all  her  colonies, 
and  we  have  no  power  nor  means  to  prevent  it."  The  territory 
that  the  United  States  has  already  taken  would  still  be  American 
territory,  and  the  only  question  would  be  whether  we  have  to  pay 
Spain  the  §20.000.000. 

The  SPEAKER  pro  tempore.  The  time  of  the  gentleman  has 
expired. 

3777 

o 


/ 


3? 


i 


r 

308  g884s 

P19289 

Grow 

, 

308 

G884S 

P19289 

